Cycling,
Health and Safety
Research Report

Cycling,
Health and Safety
Research ReportThis work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of orsovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries
and to the name of any territory, city or area.

Please cite this publication as:
OECD/International Transport Forum (2013), Cycling, Health and Safety, OECD Publishing/ITF.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789282105955-en

ISBN 978-92-821-0594-8 (print)
ISBN 978-92-821-0595-5 (PDF)

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The useof such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli
settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Photo credits: Cover © Dominik Thali, www.velofahrer.ch.

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

© OECD/ITF 2013
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases andmultimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitableacknowledgment of the source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should besubmitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be
addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie(CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT FORUM
The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 54
member countries. It acts as a strategic think tank with the objective of helping shape the transport policy
agenda on a global level and ensuring that it contributes to economic growth, environmental protection,social inclusion and the preservation of human life and well-being. The International Transport Forumorganizes an annual summit of Ministers along with leading representatives from industry, civil society
and academia.
The International Transport Forum was created under a Declaration issued by the Council of
Ministers of the ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) at its Ministerial Session in
May 2006 under the legal authority of the Protocol of the ECMT, signed in Brussels on 17 October 1953,
and legal instruments of the OECD.
The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark,Estonia, Finland, France, FYROM, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The International Transport Forum’s Research Centre gathers statistics and conducts co-operative
research programmes addressing all modes of transport. Its findings are widely disseminated and support
policymaking in Member countries as well as contributing to the annual summit.

Further information about the International Transport Forum is available atwww.internationaltransportforum.org
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to thedelimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

Organisation of this report

This report reviews recent research findings and presents evidence derived from surveys ofInternational Transport Forum-OECD countries relating to bicycle safety.
Chapter 1 addresses the key issues relating to cycling safety and links them to a greater discussionof health, safety and cycling. The deleterious impact of crashes on cyclists’ health is only one part of thehealth impacts of cycling – the health benefits of cycling are often overlooked in policy discussions. This
chapter examines the full range of health impacts and discusses critical elements necessary for cycling
policy evaluation. It also suggests a way forward for framing cycling and road safety policy such that
health benefits are maximised.
Chapter 2 looks at how national and regional/local authorities are developing, facilitating or
guiding cycling policy. Based on a questionnaire of International Transport Forum members, this chapter
inventories national cycle plans and discusses their key features. It also reviews the different national
legal frameworks and rules surrounding bicycles and cycling and presents some findings relating to thefunding of bicycle infrastructure and programmes to promote cycling.
Chapter 3 reviews trends relating to cycling safety as reported and vetted by ITF members via aquestionnaire. This information is complemented by different national and regional sources of
information. Trends relating to fatalities, injuries and crash rates are presented alongside international
data on levels of cycling. Where possible, exposure-adjusted safety figures are given and some of theunderlying factors contributing to observed trends are discussed.
Chapter 4 presents detailed analysis of bicycle crash characteristics across a range of countries
based on a detailed questionnaire and other sources of national information. It provides an up-to-datecomparison of factors relating to bicycle crashes among responding countries and discusses the policy
implications that emerge.
Chapter 5 discusses the efficacy of a range of measures typically deployed to decrease bicycle
crash rates and severity or increase cycling levels.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 7

Table of contents

Cycling safety: key messages and recommendations ................................................................... 17
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

Setting the Groundwork for Safe Cycling ....................................................................... 17
What approach for increased cycling safety? .................................................................. 23
Lessons from national and regional cycling safety policies. ........................................... 24
Review of evidence on cycle safety status and trends - What do the numbers tell us? ... 25
Review of Bicycle Safety Measures: Lessons for Policy ................................................ 29

1. Cycling, safety, health and policy – necessary linkages, suggested approaches .................... 37
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.

Pro-cycling Policies and Safety ....................................................................................... 37
Linkages between Cycling, Safety and Health ................................................................ 42“Safety in Numbers”: Do more cyclists improve safety… and if so, how? .................... 57
Challenges to assessing cycling safety:
Cyclist crash under-reporting and lack of exposure data ................................................ 59
1.5. How to deliver sustainable safety? The safe system approach ........................................ 64
Key Messages ............................................................................................................................ 68
Notes .......................................................................................................................................... 69
References .................................................................................................................................. 70
2. Policy measures and administrative framework for bicycle safety .......................................... 75
2.1 Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................ 75
2.2 Cycling and Safety Planning ............................................................................................ 76
2.3 Laws and Regulations relating to Bicycle Safety ............................................................ 89
2.4 National spending on cycling........................................................................................... 94
Notes .......................................................................................................................................... 97
3. Analysis of international trends in bicycle use and cyclist safety .......................................... 101
3.1 Introduction and methodology ....................................................................................... 101
3.2 Terms and definitions .................................................................................................... 102
3.3 Road crashes involving cyclists ..................................................................................... 102
3.4 Exposure data: Bicycle use ............................................................................................ 111
3.5 Cycling infrastructure .................................................................................................... 116
Notes ........................................................................................................................................ 122
4. Overview of bicycle crash characteristics in selected countries ............................................ 123
4.1
4.2

Introduction and methodology ....................................................................................... 123
Fatal crashes ................................................................................................................... 124

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

8 – TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.3 Serious Injury crashes .................................................................................................... 143
4.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 153
4.5 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 157
4.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 158
Notes ........................................................................................................................................ 160
5. Review of Bicycle safety measures ........................................................................................ 161
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 161
5.2 Key considerations regarding the assessment of safety measures ................................. 163
5.3 Non-infrastructural measures ......................................................................................... 167
5.4 Infrastructural measures ................................................................................................. 173
5.5 Other Measures .............................................................................................................. 203
5.6 Diagnosis and implementing safety measures. .............................................................. 206
Notes ........................................................................................................................................ 211
Annex A: Working group questionnaire on bicycle safety and crash characteristics ................ 215
Annex B. Policy measures derived from stated preference analysis for bicycle use:Route choice factors in the Indian context .................................................................................. 219
Annex C. A stated preference analysis on bicycle user’s perception on cycling safety
and its policy implications in Korean contexts ........................................................................... 233
ITF-OECD Working Group on Cycling Safety........................................................................................ 243

FiguresI.I

Index of bicycle travel and per-kilometre cyclist casualties for Copenhagen ................................. 18(Police-reported, 1996-2010) and kilometres of cycling infrastructure. ......................................... 18

I.II

Actual vs. Registered number of fatalities (30 days) and serious injuries ...................................... 22

I.III Cyclist traffic fatalities by month or day of week and by time of day, EU ..................................... 26
I.IV. Safety improvement from complete re-design of complex junction (Copenhagen). ...................... 33
1.1

Example of pro-cycling policies: Public Bicycle sharing systems worldwide in 2012 .................. 38

1.2

Traffic injuries by severity in the Netherlands, Average 2007-2009 .............................................. 46

1.3

Summary of car vs. cyclist pollutant concentration ratios, 13 studies, 21 findings ........................ 50

1.4

Pollutant concentration gradient from roadside – ...............................................................................
Local regression of background normalised concentrations on distance ........................................ 51

1.5

Map of PM10 concentrations alongside a main road with 110 000 vehicles/day, Prague .............. 52

1.6

Estimated mortality impacts due to an increase in cycle mode share .................................................
in the Greater Paris region............................................................................................................... 54

1.7
1.8

Estimated mortality (and morbidity) costs and benefits per individual switchingfrom car to bicycle for work trips* in large European cities ........................................................... 55
Schematic representation of the development of a crash ................................................................ 64

1.9

How “predictability” works to reduce crash risk ............................................................................ 66

1.10 Bicycle facilities and bicycle share ................................................................................................. 67

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 9

2.1

Extract from the Dutch Verkeersexamen child traffic safety exam ................................................ 80

2.2

Shared roadspace “Zone de rencontre” in France ........................................................................... 93

3.1
3.2

Evolution of all recorded injury bicycle crashes 2000-2009, selected countries .......................... 104
Evolution of recorded serious injury and fatal bicycle crashes 2000-2009,selected countries reporting to CARE database ............................................................................ 105

3.3Actual vs. Registered number of fatalities (30 days) and serious injuries
in the Netherlands 2000-2009 ....................................................................................................... 106

3.4

Share of bicycle crash fatalities in overall traffic crash fatalities
for selected European countries .................................................................................................... 106

3.5

Percent change in all recorded injury crashes compared to % change
in recorded bicycle injury crashes, 2000-2009, selected countries ............................................... 107

3.6

Percent change in all recorded serious and fatal injury crashes compared to % change
in recorded serious and fatal bicycle injury crashes, 2000-2009, selected countries .................... 107

3.7

Cycle crash severity: Ratio of recorded serious injury and fatal bicycle crashes toall recorded bicycle crashes (3 year average)................................................................................ 108

3.8

Distribution of recorded cyclist fatalities by age group (2000-2010), selected countries ............. 110

3.9

Daily cycling mode shares in Europe 2010, compared to the Netherlands ................................... 111

3.10 Cycling mode share (% of all trips) in selected major cities from travel surveys ......................... 112
3.11 Kilometres travelled by bicycle per capita: Average yearly rate of change 2000-2009................ 114
3.12 Bicycle travel per inhabitant per year (km) and number of cyclists killed
per billion kilometres of bicycle travel ......................................................................................... 114
3.13 Index of bicycle travel and per-kilometre cyclist casualties for Copenhagen(Police-reported, 1996-2010) and kilometres of cycling infrastructure. ....................................... 115
3.14 Index of bicycle travel, and per kilometre cyclist casualties (3-year rolling average) for Denmark(Police-reported, 2000-2010) and the Netherlands (Police and hospital reported 2000-2009) ..... 116
4.1
4.2

Cyclist traffic fatalities by month or day of week and by time of day, EU, 2005-2010 ............... 125
Cyclist traffic fatalities by month or day of week and by time of day, USA, 2005-2011 ............. 126

4.3

Percentage of all reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring by month,selected European countries. ......................................................................................................... 127

4.4

Cyclist traffic fatalities by light conditions in Europe and the USA ............................................. 128

4.5

Percentage of all reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring by time of day, 2005-2010................. 129

4.6

Percentage of all reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring by day of week, 2005-2010 ............... 130

4.7

Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring in urban vs.
rural areas and motorways, EU ..................................................................................................... 131

4.8

Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring on different typesof infrastructure in Belgium and Denmark ................................................................................... 132

4.9

Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring atdifferent junction locations, EU .................................................................................................... 133

4.10 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes according to the legal speed limitof the main road involved in EU and USA. .................................................................................. 134
4.11 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring with or without helmets, EU ... 135

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

10 – TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.12 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring with or without
a crash opponent, EU .................................................................................................................... 136
4.13 Fatal bicycle crash victims by crash opponent, USA .................................................................... 136
4.14 Fatal bicycle crash victims by crash opponent (excluding passenger cars), EU ........................... 138
4.15 Manoeuvre by cyclist for fatal bicycle crashes where pre-crash manoeuvre
was identified and recorded, EU ................................................................................................... 139
4.16 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes classified as cyclist at fault
in Australia, Denmark, and Spain ................................................................................................. 141
4.17 Bicyclist action circumstance at time of crash for fatal bicycle crashes in the USA, ................... 141
4.18 Motorist violations and contributing factors for fatal bicycle crashes in the USA ....................... 142
4.19 Seriously injured cyclists by month or day of week and by time of day, EU ............................... 144
4.20 Percentage of all reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring by month, EU ...................... 145
4.21 Percentage of all reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring by time of day, EU .............. 146
4.22 Seriously injured cyclists by light conditions at the time of crash in Europe ............................... 146
4.23 Percentage of all reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring by day of week, EU............. 147
4.24 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring in urban
vs. rural areas and motorways in selected EU countries ............................................................... 148
4.25 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring atdifferent junction locations, EU .................................................................................................... 149
4.26 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes according to
the legal speed limit of the main road involved in selected European countries .......................... 150
4.27 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring withor without helmets in selected EU countries ................................................................................. 150
4.28 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring withor without a crash opponent, EU ................................................................................................... 151
4.29 Manoeuvre by cyclist for serious injury bicycle crashes where pre-crash manoeuvre
was identified and recorded, selected EU countries ...................................................................... 152
5.1
5.3

Different types of bicycles – and different types of bicyclists. ..................................................... 162
Tail and front lights (from two different manufacturers) powered by magnetic induction........... 168

5.4

Ground-level blind spots for HGV/Construction equipment drivers andthe impact of additional mirrors. ................................................................................................... 169

5.5

Truck with low level windscreen and side windows (Copenhagen). ............................................ 170

5.6

Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed ............................................................. 175

5.7

Guide for planning bicycle facilities on all-purpose roads (Denmark). ........................................ 175

5.8

Bicycle Tracks............................................................................................................................... 176

5.9

Left: Bicycle track (barely) marked on the sidewalk (Germany).
Right: Bicycle track marked on the sidewalk (Faroe Islands)....................................................... 177
5.10 Contra flow streets in Strasbourg (left) and St. Germain-en-Laye (right). ..................................... 178
5.11 Visibility splays in priority controlled T-junction (with one-directional bicycle paths
on main road, right-hand drive)..................................................................................................... 178
5.12 Small roundabout (mini roundabout) with raised (blue) bicycle lane (Copenhagen). .................. 180

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 11

5.13 Motor vehicle encroachment onto cycling infrastructure can contributeto crash-causing manouvres .......................................................................................................... 181
5.14 Typical bicycle paths/tracks alongside roads ................................................................................ 182
5.15 Some bicycle track designs (verges with trees, lamp posts etc.) may “hide” bicyclists
from turning cars. .......................................................................................................................... 184
5.16 Left: Pedestrians crossing a bicycle track. Right: Conflicts between pedestrians
and cyclist on a bicycle track. ....................................................................................................... 184
5.17 Bicycle-pedestrian interaction zones at bus stops. ........................................................................ 185
5.18 Typical bicycle lanes ..................................................................................................................... 186
5.19 Bicycle lanes and car parking. ...................................................................................................... 187
5.20 Paved shoulders on rural roads (Denmark). .................................................................................. 188
5.21 Road hump with kerbed islands and bollards................................................................................ 189
5.22 Spherical road hump without any vertical hazards for bicyclists. ................................................. 190
5.23 Central island at bicycle crossing on urban road........................................................................... 191
5.24 Speed reducing measures on bicycle paths or greenways ............................................................. 191
5.25 Bicycle crossing on raised plateau and with right of way for bicyclist (Denmark). ..................... 192
5.26 Recessed bicycle track. ................................................................................................................. 193
5.27 Continuing bicycle track (and sidewalk) in a priority junction. .................................................... 193
5.28 Side road entry treatment (SRET) with contra-flow bicycle lane (Paris). .................................... 194
5.29 Bicycle storage lane (Denmark). ................................................................................................... 195
5.30 Different types of designated bicycle signals. ............................................................................... 195
5.31 Bicycle-specific traffic signal phases ............................................................................................ 196
5.32 Advanced stop line in signalised junction (Copenhagen). ............................................................ 197
5.33 Bicycle boxes ................................................................................................................................ 198
5.34 Narrow bicycle lanes ..................................................................................................................... 199
5.35 Truncated bicycle track in signalised junction (Copenhagen). ..................................................... 199
5.36 Truncated bicycle track at a crowded signalised junction (Copenhagen). .................................... 200
5.37 Central bicycle lane ....................................................................................................................... 201
5.38 Coloured bicycle crossings at junctions ........................................................................................ 202
5.39 Refuge or shunted cycle track (nearside turning - Copenhagen) .................................................. 202
5.40 Cycle path in the middle of the road ............................................................................................. 203
5.42 Offside cycle lane (St. Germain-en-Laye, France)........................................................................ 204
5.43 Sensor-activated LED lights warning nearside turning motorists of presence of cyclist
in near-side bicycle lane (Copenhagen). ....................................................................................... 205
5.43 Safety improvement from complete re-design of complex junction (Copenhagen). .................... 206
C1

Trend of bicycle crashes in Korea ................................................................................................. 234

C.2

Main purposes of bicycle use in Korea ......................................................................................... 238

C.3

Main reasons for bicycle use as a transport mode in Korea .......................................................... 239

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

12 – TABLE OF CONTENTS

TablesI.I.

Trouble-shooting table : Infrastructure measures and bicycle safety .............................................. 34

1.1

Relative risk for cyclists vs. other modes, selected countries (index, car driver=1) ....................... 39

1.3

Quantified relative risk estimates for selected diseases from 2.5 hours per weekof moderate physical activity* ........................................................................................................ 43

1.4

Average number of killed per 1 billion vehicular kilometresin the Netherlands
from 2007 to 2009 and relative risk ................................................................................................ 46

1.5

Inhalation, travel time, air pollutant concentration and calculated inhaled dose:
Pairwise analysis of two commuter routes in Barcelona ................................................................. 53

1.6

Safe speeds for different road types ................................................................................................ 65

3.1

Selected Countries for Review (shaded = no response) ................................................................ 101

3.2
3.3

Road injuries – ITF-EUROSTAT-UNECE definition and application in IRTAD countries ........ 103
Presence of separate linear bicycle infrastructure (date implementation if known)...................... 117

3.4

Presence of mixed linear bicycle infrastructure (date implementation if known)......................... 118

3.5

Presence of point bicycle infrastructure (date of first implementation if known) ......................... 119

4.1
5.1

Serious injury cycling collision crash involvement/opponent ...................................................... 152
Recommended minimum stopping sight distances (UK) .............................................................. 173

5.2

Recommended gradients (Denmark) ............................................................................................. 174

A.1
C.1

Questionnaire responses for data on cycling crash characteristics ................................................ 217
Estimation result for total bicycle travel ....................................................................................... 240

C.2

Elasticity of bicycle travel demand with respect to the attributes ................................................. 240

C.3

Estimation result for bicycle work commuters ............................................................................. 241

C.4

Elasticity of bicycle travel demand for work commute with respect to the attributes .................. 241

Boxes
1.1

Crash Risk Factors and Cycling ...................................................................................................... 40

1.2

Electric Bicycles, Safety and Health ............................................................................................... 49

1.3

Accounting for cycling safety and health in cost-benefit analysis .................................................. 56

1.4"Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties" Key Recommendations ...................................... 59

1.5

Bicycle injury characteristics and reporting rates from the EU Injury Database (IDB) ................. 62

4.1

Evidence and lessons from London on HGV andconstruction vehicle-related fatal bicycle crashes ......................................................................... 137

4.2

Results from Bicycle Crash Micro-Analysis in Korea .................................................................. 154

5.1

Example of bicycle road safety audit and prompt lists (US Federal Highway Administration) ... 164

5.2

Perceived Safety and Route Choice Preference: Evidence from India and Korea ........................ 167

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

GLOSSARY – 13

01. Separate Linear Infrastructure

Cycle track
Separated cycle lane, Separated cycle track, Segregated cycle facility, Bicycle track, Cycle pathalongside the road, Kerbed bicycle lane
A cycle track is a reserved space specificly for cyclists
and provided along a road. The track is physically(vegetation, fence, curb, …) separated from vehicle travel
lanes, parking lanes and sidewalks. Cycle tracks can beeither one-way or two-way, on one or both sides of a road.
Photo credit: Authors

01. Separate Linear Infrastructure

Cycle lane
Marked cycle track, Bicycle lane
A cycle lane is a legally reserved driving space for cyclists
on the road, separated from motor traffic by marking.
Photo credit: Authors

01. Separate Linear Infrastructure

Combined cycle-pedestrian track
Shared track
A combined cycle-pedestrian track is a reserved space(one- or two-way) for cyclists and pedestrians provided
along a road. The track is either mixed cycle-pedestrianallowing both cyclists and pedestrians to use its full
width, or separated cycle-pedestrian with a visual
separation (marking) or differentiation (pavement)
between the two groups of users on the same track.
Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

14 – GLOSSARY

01. Separate Linear Infrastructure

Greenway
Cycle path off road, Cycle trail, Solitary cycle track
Greenways are connecting trails, used for non-motorised
traffic. Greenways are normaly bi-directional.
Photo credit: Gene Bisbee

02. Mixed Linear Infrastructure

Suggested cycle lane
Non-compulsory lane, Suggestion lane, Schutzstreifen, Suggestiestrook, Bande cyclable suggérée,Voie centrale banalisée, Sharrow
Technically and legally an advisory lane is not a cycle
lane at all. A part of the carriageway is marked as asuggested space for cyclists, without being exclusively
reserved for their use.
Photo credit: Eric Fischer

02. Mixed Linear Infrastructure

Cycle street
Cycleway, Bicycle boulevard
A cycle street is a road designed that cyclists dominate
visually and motorised traffic is tolerated exceptionally(e.g. for residents), if it is allowed at all.
Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

GLOSSARY – 15

02. Mixed Linear Infrastructure

Central traffic lane
Chaussée à voie centrale banalisée, Kantstroken, Kernfahrbahn
The carriageway is divided into one central lane for motor
traffic and two side lanes for cyclists and pedestrians. Motor
traffic uses the lateral band only to pass or cross vehicles.
Photo credit: Authors

02. Mixed Linear Infrastructure

Combined bus-cycle lane
Bus-lane
A combined bus-cycle lane is facility where cyclists andbuses share a reserved lane.
Photo credit: Authors

02. Mixed Linear Infrastructure

Contra-flow cycling
Double sens cyclable, Contre sens cyclable en sens unique, Sens Unique Limité (SUL)
Contra-flow cycling iswhen cyclists are allowed
to ride against the flow of
one-way streets.
Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

16 – GLOSSARY

03. Point Infrastructure

Cyclist signals
At crossroads comprising acycle lane or a cycle track (forexample), some signals are
installed for cyclists only. In
some cases (e.g. in Denmark) an
early green stage is included in
the signal cycle to releasecyclists before motorists. In
other cases, the signals arecontrolled so as to allow cyclists
to turn nearside during the red
stage.

Photo credit: Authors

0.3 Point Infrastructure

Advanced stop line
Stopline for cyclist (on a cycle track or cycle lane) placedsome meters ahead of stopline for motor vehicles in asignalised junction.
Photo credit: Authors

0.3 Point Infrastructure

Cycle box
Cycle stacking lane, Zone avancée pour cyclistes, Sas véloThis reserved space for cyclists makes them more visibleon the approach to crossroads with traffic signals.
Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 17

Key messages and recommendations

I. Setting the Groundwork for Safe Cycling
Bicycles belong in the urban mobility mix
Bicycles are an essential part of the urban mobility mix. They use no fossil energy, deliver
important health benefits, and improve the liveability of cities. In low income regions the bicycle offers
perhaps the only affordable way of getting to work, to earn income and to access basic living needs. Inhigh income urban areas the bicycle is becoming more popular or returning to popularity. In some cases
cycling dominates the urban traffic mix.
The attraction of the bicycle resides in its ability to provide an affordable and seamless door-to-doormobility service – it is as versatile as walking but can cover greater distances at higher speeds. It
represents an alternative to cars and allows for greater freedom of movement than scheduled public
transport services. Bicycles are well suited to the great number of short trips that are typical for urban
mobility. Beyond public bike sharing systems, there are a number of pro-cycling policies andframeworks that are being implemented throughout ITF countries.
Cyclists are vulnerable road users.
Road traffic is inherently unsafe. Traffic infrastructure is seldom designed with safety as a starting
point and though efforts are made to accommodate the wide range of behaviours displayed by road users,
errors and unpredictable or impaired actions often lead to crashes. The kinetic forces involved resulting
from the differences in mass and velocity of crash opponents largely dictates the severity of theoutcomes. Crash outcomes are especially severe for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians andcyclists who lack the level of protection mandated for, and offered to, car and other vehicle occupants.
Single bicycle crashes are also a source of injuries through falls and collisions with obstacles and canresult in serious injuries, especially for elderly cyclists and those unprotected by helmets. Studies
investigating the comparative risk of injury for cyclists versus car occupants find significantly higher
risks per unit of exposure for cyclists.
Cyclists are often forgotten in the design of the road traffic system
Cyclists are at risk in traffic because the road system has, with some notable exceptions, not been
designed for cyclists. More precisely, the road system has not been designed for mixing well-protected,
heavy and high velocity vehicles with unprotected, lightweight and slower road users. Furthermore, thetraffic system does not typically account for the specific characteristics of cyclists and bicycles. Cyclists
are highly flexible and sometimes unpredictable road users, riders display very different abilities, cyclists
seek to minimise energy expenditure, bicycles can be easily de-stabilised and are relatively difficult tosee because of their size (in daytime) and relatively poor or absent night-time lighting. Though cycling is
an important component of urban mobility, cyclists are often seen as intruders in the road system.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

18 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONSDo policies that increase the number of cyclists contribute to more crashes?
This is an important question because if cyclists are vulnerable and the road system is not designed
for cycling, then pro-cycling policies could conceivably expose a greater number of people to potentially
dangerous conditions. The short answer to this question is that when the number of cyclists increase, thenumber of crashes, both fatal and non-fatal, may increase as well – but not necessarily so if attention ispaid to good policy design. Furthermore, the rate of cycling crashes may decrease, especially if
accompanying safety-improving policies are implemented. Thus while the number of crashes may
increase, cycling safety -- measured by the number of crashes per some measure of exposure (e.g. trips,
cyclists, time cycling, distance travelled) -- may improve though it should be noted that any absoluteincrease in serious or fatal cycling crashes is clearly an outcome to be avoided.
Sustained, well-designed and targeted policies can increase both cycling and safety
Where pro-cycling and pro-safety policies are deployed hand-in-hand, an increase in ridership canbe accompanied by a concomitant reduction of injury risk. For example, in Copenhagen, bicycle travel
has increased by 20% from 1996 to 2010 while at the same time police-reported fatalities and serious
injuries have dropped by 70% (Figure I.I). These findings are significant and, in the context of the
expansion of well-designed bicycle facilities over the same period, indicate that targeted policies cansimultaneously increase cycling and safety.
Figure I.I Index of bicycle travel and per-kilometre cyclist casualties for Copenhagen(Police-reported, 1996-2010) and kilometres of cycling infrastructure.
Bicycle kilometres travel (weekday)
1.2
1.0

Cyclist serious injuries
and fatalities per km

0.3

Cycling tracks

Cycling lanes

Green cycle routes
397

411

338
1998

388

323
1996

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

348

367

380

Source: City of CopenhagenCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 19

Cycling, safety and health are indissociably linked
A discussion of the impact of cycling on road safety should not be isolated from a broader
discussion of the overall health impacts of cycling. Indeed, if we are concerned that increasing thenumber of cyclists may increase crash numbers or risks, it is because of the deleterious effects of crashes
on cyclists’ health. Crashes, however, are not the only factors that affect cyclists’ health – exposure to air
pollution can negatively impact cyclists’ health just as cycling-related exercise can (greatly) improvecyclists’ health. Pursuing increased safety for cycling makes sense no matter what the balance of
positive/negative health outcomes but accounting for overall health impacts is essential in helping frame
efforts to increase cycling.
Cycling significantly improves health
The most important point to retain is that cycling, as a form of moderate exercise, can greatly reduce
clinical health risks linked to cardiovascular disease, obesity, Type-2 diabetes, certain forms of cancer,
osteoporosis and depression. Taken separately and even more so when effects are cumulative, these
conditions exact a high human and economic cost on society. This health improving-effect is robust
across different studies and in different geographic contexts and is greatest when moving from largely
sedentary lifestyle patterns to more active ones. There is evidence that the range of morbidity-reducing
effects is even greater than that of mortality-reducing effects – not only does cycling reduce diseaserelated deaths but it also contributes to substantially better health.
Cyclists register higher doses of particulate matter than car drivers
On the other hand, cyclists’ health is negatively impacted by exposure to air pollution – especiallyfine particulates and ozone. This risk, at least when compared to other urban travellers (car, bus, metro),
has often been downplayed by the finding that average concentrations of suspended particulate matter(especially fine particulate matter) are rarely significantly different between cyclists and car drivers – andslightly higher on average for car occupants. However, this finding ignores a crucial variable –ventilation. Cyclists breathe more often and more deeply than car occupants. Thus while ambient levelsof particulate matter may be similar, actual particulate deposition within the lungs of cyclists is muchhigher – by several orders of magnitude. In some cases, the mortality effects from exposure to air
pollution are greater than the mortality effects stemming from crashes. Cyclists’ health could be
improved by locating bicycle facilities away from road traffic where feasible – especially for sections
where cars are accelerating (hills, long straightaways).
Recommendation 1:
Where it does not reduce the quality of cycling networks, bicycle facilities should be located away fromroad traffic when feasible – especially for sections where cars are accelerating (hills, long straightaways).
On balance, the positive health impacts of cycling far outweigh negative health impacts
Reviewing evidence from studies looking at the full spectrum of cyclist health impacts (including
crash-related injuries and air pollution) while controlling for exposure and crash under-reporting
indicates that the estimated health benefits of cycling are several orders of magnitude greater than thehealth dis-benefits of cycling. Promoting cycling makes sense from a societal and whole of government
perspective though this may challenge those transport authorities who constrain their analysis to relative
crash risks only.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

20 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Monetisation of incommensurate health impacts allows for comparison of these along a common
scale. For large European cities, (Rabl and de Nazelle, 2009) find that on average the positive healthgains for an individual resulting from a switch from car to bicycle commuting add up to €1343 per year.
They find the negative health impacts, including those linked to crash-related mortality, result in a loss of€72/year – or 19 times less than the benefits. The principal finding that the health benefits from cycling
dwarf all other variables is robust to a range of assumptions regarding specific variables and monetary
values.
Considering morbidity in addition to mortality would likely increase the numbers for individual andsocietal air pollution-related impacts by approximately 50% and increase the number for the health gainfrom cycling by more than 50%. At the same time, costs related to non-fatal bicycle accidents would besignificantly higher (estimated, for instance by to be €0.125/km in Belgium).
“Safety in Numbers”: Cyclist safety is linked to the number of cyclists in traffic but causationis uncertain.
Many researchers and observers have noted a correlation between cyclists’ numbers and increased
safety expressed as a decrease of the incidence rate of severe/fatal crashes involving cyclists. The “safetyin numbers” effect has been cited widely but correlation does not imply causality and there are numerous
possible explanations for the observed effect. At the centre of the phenomenon is the observation of nonlinearity of risk: an increase in exposure (numbers, volumes, etc.) results in a less than proportional
increase in the number of crashes. This implies that if the number of vehicles increases, crash rates will
go down. The risks to cyclists are also non-linear, that is to say an increase in numbers results in a nonproportional increase of crashes.
“Expectancy” is one way of explaining this non-linearity. That is to say: if a road user expects thepresence of another road user, or can predict the behaviour of that other road user, one may expect lower
risks. Another possible explanation is that large groups of cyclists benefit from cumulative danger
awareness – when one cyclist detects and avoids a dangerous situation, others in proximity benefit andcan take protective action as well. In this respect, it may be more precise to re-cast “safety in numbers”
as “awareness in numbers”. An alternative explanation for the “safety in numbers” phenomenon is thatcycle-safe traffic systems attract large numbers of cyclists – large numbers of cyclists in countries suchas the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are associated with high densities of bicycle facilities. Thereis no solid evidence that low fatality rates can only be explained by ‘numbers’ alone. Critically, if policy
simply adds more cyclists to the system without other risk-reducing measures, then those cyclists may be
exposed to significant crash risks.
Recommendation 2
Insufficient evidence supports causality for the “safety in numbers” phenomenon – policies increasing
the number of cyclists should be accompanied by risk-reduction actions.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 21

Most authorities lack the factual basis with which to assess cycling safety or the impact of“safety-improving” policies
In the course of this review of cycling safety, it has become clear that most national authorities andmany regional/municipal authorities lack the basis on which to assess both cyclists’ safety and the impactof safety policies. At the core of safety assessment is the calculation of crash incidence rates (typicallysplit into fatal crashes and others of varying degrees of severity). Schematically; safety (expressed as thecrash incidence rate) is the quotient of the number of crashes divided by a measure of exposure or bicycle
usage.
Number of crashes, fatalities or injuries)
Safety (incidence rate) =Measure of exposure (trips, km, hrs)

In many cases both numerator and denominator are inadequately measured or may be missing
altogether.
Cycling crashes are significantly under-reported
Under-recording of cycling accidents is an essential problem for bicycle safety analysis. The
underlying reason of under-recording is that personal injury accidents are not systematically registered. It
should be kept in mind that the analysis that follows in this report is based largely on data of recorded
bicycle accidents. Under-recording is not limited to bicycle accidents or certain countries, it concerns all
types of vehicles and all countries. Under-reporting is less prevalent when considering fatal crashes
involving cyclists though there are discrepancies in criteria for attributing post-crash deaths to specifictraffic incidents. Poor coordination between police and hospital record-keeping also contribute to inexact
crash-related fatality data. Furthermore, while there is convergence in many countries towards common
terminology and definitions for injury severity, important differences remain that may hinder crosscountry analysis of trends – greater convergence along the lines of terminology defined by the IRTADInternational Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group would simplify safety analysis.
Recommendation 3
Efforts must be made to harmonise definitions of terminology so as to be able to make reliableinternational comparisons of cyclist safety.
Under-reporting of non-fatal cycle crash related injuries is much more prevalent and hampers
cycling safety assessments. Under-reporting complicates the analysis of long-term trends and poor orbiased recording hides the true picture of cycle safety. For instance, police-reported data on serious
bicycle crash injuries in the Netherlands gives a completely misleading view of the real evolution ofthese injuries when accounting for hospital-recorded data (Figure I.II). In this context, reported data
misinforms policy-making both to the scope and scale of crash rates. In the absence of an objective pointof reference and comparison, it is also difficult to set quantified goals for reducing the number of cycling
crash victims. There is evidence that among all road crash victims, cyclists are the least recorded. There
are numerous reasons for this. When there are no seriously injured persons or immediate physicalcomplications, parties involved generally do not inform the police or, when informed, the police do notalways find it necessary to respond. When only vulnerable road users such as cyclists are involved, it isless probable that the police intervene than for car crashes. Another reason for under-recording is that the
fewer people involved in a non-severe crash, the smaller the likelihood of records being filed.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

22 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure I.II Actual vs. Registered number of fatalities (30 days) and serious injuries (MAIS 2+) in the
Netherlands 2000-2009 (3 year rolling average)
224

Cyclist fatalities (3 yr. average)

195

Cyclist serious injuries* (3 yr. average)
9824
185
143

7276

1958

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1458

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
* MAIS2 +Source: Netherlands Road Safety database, SWOV

How severe is under-reporting of cycling crashes? One assessment for Europe finds that police
records only capture 50% of hospital admissions for traffic-related cycling injuries. In Austria, police
records only account for 15% of all bicycle crash-related injuries. Another assessment for the UnitedStates finds this figure to be only 10%. An in-depth prospective cohort-based study for Belgium confirms
strong underreporting of non-fatal crash-related injuries finding that only 7% of non-severe bicycle
crashes were recorded in police statistics – a low figure confirmed in other studies. Further, authorities
lack information on the year-on-year pattern and consistency of under-reporting complicating efforts tosystematically correct for this phenomenon
Recommendation 4
National authorities should set standards for and collect or otherwise facilitate the collection of data on
non-fatal cycling crashes based on police reports linked, in either a systematic or periodic way, tohospital records.
Lack of bicycle usage and exposure data hinders safety assessment
Most countries and/or cities are ill-equipped to assess cycling safety because of a lack of accurate
and detailed information on actual bicycle usage. This lack of exposure data is a real hindrance tounderstanding the current status of cycling safety and complicates the assessment of the impact oftransport policies on cycling safety. This makes it difficult to answer questions such as how safe iscycling, and how does cycling compare to other modes of travel? Without information about distances
cycled in different countries it is difficult to compare the safety of the cycling systems in those countries.
Crucially, exposure-based injury rates allow authorities to understand if policies improve safety by
reducing exposure (e.g. by decreasing bicycle use) which, given the benefits of cycling would be a badthing or if they increase safety by decreasing crash-related injuries for a same level of usage.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 23

Arguably, the best measures of cycling exposure are distance or time cycled. In the absence of thisinformation, proxy exposure measures can be used but these are far less accurate. For example, length ofcycling infrastructure in a particular country might give an indication of how much cycling occurs in thatcountry. However, it is possible that a country has a great deal of cycling infrastructure without thisinfrastructure necessarily being used much. Other proxy measures include number of bicycles owned(some of which go unused) and population (many of whom don’t cycle). Rates calculated using the lessaccurate indicators of exposure should be treated with caution.
Recommendation 5:
National authorities should set standards for and collect or otherwise facilitate the collection of accurate,frequent and comparable data on bicycle usage.
II. What approach for increased cycling safety?
Apply “Safe system” principles for cycle safety
Authorities have often approached cycling safety (often all traffic safety) in a piecemeal way –focusing on cyclists and rarely on the entire traffic system. Reaching high levels of safety for cyclists(and for other traffic participants as well) requires a different approach that seeks to design (or re-design)
the system to accommodate cyclists and to account for their characteristics. If the system is unsafe forcyclists, policy should focus on changing the system, not simply on marginal improvements for cyclists
in an inherently unsafe system. The “Safe System” approach extends beyond cyclists and isrecommended as a general safety planning approach for all traffic classes. In a Safe System Approach theroad transport system is designed to accommodate human error and incorporate a full range of strategies
for better management of crash forces, addressing infrastructure design, road user behaviour,
enforcement and the design of vehicles,
Recommendation 6:
Authorities seeking to improve cyclists’ safety should adopt the Safe System approach -- policy should
focus on improving the inherent safety of the traffic system, not simply on securing marginal
improvements for cyclists in an inherently unsafe system.
At the heart of the Safe System approach are 4 key principles:Functionality: It is important to ensure that the actual use of the roads conforms to theirdesign and intended use. This implies a functional definition according to traffic levels,
speed and purpose, e.g. through roads, distributor roads, and (residential) access roads.
Ideally, each road or street is should have only one function -- for example, a distributor
road should not have any direct dwelling access.



Homogeneity: Large differences in speed, direction, and mass should be avoided byseparating traffic types. In certain configurations where separation is neither possible nor
desirable, traffic speed differentials between non-motorised and motorised vehicles can be
reduced by slowing the latter. Based on this principle, bicycles should be physicallyseparated from motorised traffic unless motorised traffic speeds are quite low.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

24 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONSPredictability: Road users should know what to expect from others and what is expected ofthemselves in specific traffic situations and contexts. Road design, including all of its
surroundings, should be easily recognisable and predictable for all traffic participants,
including cyclists. Dangerous traffic situations can thus be detected and avoided in time.

Forgivingness: Finally, if a crash cannot be avoided, crash outcomes should be minimised.
This may be achieved via the development and deployment of cyclist-friendly vehicle
designs or promoting the use of protective equipment by cyclists.

Safety measures are not all transferable or applicable in different environments
Municipalities and regions differ in the share of cycling in the modal split. They also differ in the
degree to which they provide facilities for cyclists. The type of cycle facilities offered should depend on
the share of cycling -- the more cycling, the more bicycle facilities. Facilities typical for a high share ofcycling do not fit in a traffic environment with a low share, while facilities adapted to a low cycling shareare not compatible with a high bicycle share. Setting facilities within their context can help avoid “over”
or “under” investing in safety.
III. Lessons from national and regional cycling safety policies.
National-level commitment to cycling and to cycling safety is important to set a common
framework for action
National-level commitment, or at a minimum, regional-level commitment, is important in setting theright legal, regulatory and financial framework so that successful implementation of cycling strategies
can take place. Not all countries address cycling safety at the national level but those that do either
establish plans focusing on improving cycling (or road) safety specifically or plans addressing transport,
spatial, environmental and health planning more generally. The first approach is more direct though thesecond approach may impact the cycling environment and thus indirectly impact safety.
Top-level coordination between cycling and other policies helps deliver more cycling andbetter safety
Cycling is affected by and in turn impacts a number of other government policies, e.g. health andland-use, alongside transport. In addition to developing national plans, some administrations assign aperson or institution responsibility for coordinating cycling policy across all of government. This practice
has the benefit of ensuring consistent policy action in favour of cycling. In particular, since healthimprovement accounts for the majority of the benefits resulting from (increased) cycling, such an
approach ensures that critical links are made between transport and health policies and that criticalobjectives for the latter are accounted for in the former.
Recommendation 7:
Authorities should establish top-level plans for cycling and cycling safety and should ensure high-level
coordination among relevant government agencies to ensure that cycling grows without aggravating
safety performance.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 25

Training all road users to cycle safety on both roads and bicycle facilities reduces potential
crash-causing conflicts.
Authorities in many high-cycling countries/regions ensure that all citizens (not just cyclists) receive
adequate training regarding cycling skills. This training covers rules relating to the use of cycling
infrastructure and governing the interaction between cyclists and motorised traffic at junctions and otherpoints of conflict. Ensuring that both motorists and cyclists expect and understand each others’ likely
behaviour in critical situations (e.g. junctions) can reduce potential crash-causing conflicts.
Recommendation 8:
Authorities should ensure that all road users receive cycling training covering riding skills and use ofboth roads and bicycle-specific facilities. This training can be part of a broader safety training
programme that many authorities have put in place targeting children and young adults.
IV. Review of evidence on cycle safety status and trends - What do the numbers tell us?
The Working group collected data from countries on cycle crash statistics in order to assess thestatus and evolution of cycle safety in those countries. However, it is important to recognise that data
were returned by a fairly restricted number of member countries. Several of these respondent countries
are recognized as providing an excellent cycling environment, while even the worst of them are fairly
good. Given this and the caveats on underreporting and lack of accurate exposure data noted above, we
can say the following based on the working group’s scan of cycling safety amongst working groupcountries.
Most countries report decreasing bicycle crash numbers though cycling safety improvements
lag behind other modes.
Two thirds of the countries responding to our survey report fewer bicycle injury crashes in 2009
than in 2000 and a minority show a deep and constant improvement. What is not clear is the extent towhich these trends are linked to changes in the safety of cycling or changes in the volume of travel bybicycle. Countries that track travel by bicycle and safety (e.g. the Netherlands and Denmark) indicate that
per kilometre fatality risk may be decreasing but report divergent trends on the evolution of per kilometrerisk for serious injuries – it is not clear the role under-reporting of crashes plays in explaining thesedifferences. While most countries report a decrease in both injury and fatal bicycle crashes, in mostcountries the decrease of bicycle injury and fatal crashes is slower than the decrease in overall injury andfatal crashes. The safety performance of cycling continues to lag behind overall transport safety
performance.
Crashes are most likely when exposure is greatest, severe crashes are most likely when traffic
speeds are above 40 km/hr and at night.
Crashes involving cyclists seem to be relatively constant over time according to the working groupmember survey results but the rates differ greatly from country to country. Cycling crashes are most
likely when exposure is greatest: during peak travel periods (in the morning, middle of the day, andafternoon), during the week in countries where cycling is a typical mode of transport (and otherwise on
the weekend), during seasons when the weather is most conducive to cycling or when the cycling surface
is dry (Figure I.III.). That most cycling takes place at these times is most likely simply a reflection thatthose times and surface conditions are most suitable for cycling.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

26 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure I.III Cyclist traffic fatalities by month or day of week and by time of day, EU
European Cyclist Deaths by Month/Day of Week and Hour 1995-2010 (n=12554)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

Jan 7
Feb 0
Mar 5
Apr 8
May 16
Jun 13
Jul 20Aug 20
Sep 10
Oct 9
Nov 6
Dec 2

2

5

5

11

35

44

33

28

46

34

34

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
26

31

40

51

79

58

33

29

20

7

16

4

4

3

5

15

19

41

26

35

29

34

30

42

35

37

32

63

51

21

17

12

8

3

3

5

6

15

15

24

56

41

35

45

37

32

38

47

58

41

49

72

46

19

16

14

9

2

9

3

6

18

21

36

35

56

58

57

56

68

66

66

75

68

52

41

54

42

28

23

5

9

4

1

13

16

39

45

83

73

66

61

66

86

92

88

74

64

54

40

55

47

24

16

16

9

6

13

25

36

56

66

106

73

69

64

68

86

75

89

67

63

47

41

61

36

27

12

16

14

24

36

46

78

102

93

88

75

86

85

92

88

92

82

79

61

62

61

52

24

8

7

4

11

39

48

57

74

95

90

81

81

93

83

82

92

97

72

73

79

53

23

19

4

6

5

32

38

50

79

69

76

84

71

60

81

96

99

101

78

86

91

61

45

21

6
4

2

1

7

26

57

59

59

60

70

65

71

58

81

82

111

92

98

116

73

38

35

18

5

3

17

15

55

38

44

54

53

48

49

49

49

66

94

123

93

47

38

20

13

7

6

3

3

5

16

37

39

39

32

37

44

27

35

49

67

72

85

50

53

38

24

17

12

5

1%

As a percentage of total road traffic deaths
Jan 2%
Feb 0%
Mar 1%
Apr 2%
May 3%Jun 2%
Jul 3%
Aug 3%
Sep 2%
Oct 2%
Nov 1%
Dec 0%

Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun

1%

2%

1%

3%

6%

6%

5%

5%

8%

7%

5%

4%

5%

6%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

3%

2%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

3%

8%

5%

7%

6%

7%

6%

7%

6%

5%

4%

7%

5%

3%

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

9%

8%

6%

8%

6%

5%

5%

6%

7%

5%

6%

7%

5%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

2%

5%

4%

7%

7%

10% 10%

9%

8%

9%

8%

7%

8%

7%

6%

5%

6%

5%

4%

4%

1%

2%

1%

0%

3%

3%

7%

8%

13% 10%

9%

8%

8%

9%

9%

9%

7%

7%

6%

5%

7%

6%

4%

3%

3%

2%

1%

3%

5%

6%

8%

10% 15% 10%

8%

8%

8%

9%

7%

8%

6%

7%

6%

5%

8%

5%

5%

2%

3%

2%

4%

5%

6%

10% 12% 12% 10%

9%

9%

9%

8%

8%

8%

8%

7%

7%

8%

6%

7%

4%

1%

1%

1%

2%

6%

7%

9%

11%

10%

9%

10%

8%

8%

8%

9%

7%

7%

7%

6%

3%

3%

1%

1%

1%

6%

6%

7%

11%

10% 11%

11%

9%

7%

9%

10%

9%

9%

8%

8%

8%

6%

6%

3%

1%

0%

0%

2%

5%

7%

7%

8%

9%

9%

9%

9%

7%

9%

9%

10%

8%

8%

8%

6%

5%

5%

3%

1%

12% 11%

1%

1%

5%

3%

9%

6%

7%

9%

9%

7%

8%

7%

6%

9%

9%

7%

6%

4%

4%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

5%

5%

6%

6%

7%

5%

5%

7%

9%

6%

6%

3%

5%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 1113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

17

6

10

7

36

74

90

106

90

115

101

77

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
85

112

138

144

126

123

105

72

58

48

25

13

11

8

2

7

32

69

88

111

106

132

108

80

95

110

129

145

157

134

99

75

65

44

20

12

7

7

3

3

31

59

79

95

118

108

125

92

101

120

135

125

138

137

120

66

75

45

35

17

9

5

8

14

33

66

80

91

91

111

110

102

104

108

113

143

157

121

100

97

54

53

24

8

17

10

8

8

28

60

70

103

113

112

99

103

97

137

146

161

159

123

137

102

90

67

54

12

23

14

17

16

25

37

42

72

77

97

92

105

96

123

109

118

115

118

117

108

70

75

50

33

32

27

18

23

14

24

30

47

98

102

89

106

79

61

84

96

114

97

90

91

69

64

46

31

As a percentage of total road traffic deaths
Mon 3%
Tue 2%
Wed 1%
Thu 1%Fri 2%
Sat 2%Sun 2%
1

1%

2%

1%

5%

7%

7%

9%

8%

10%

9%

6%

7%

8%

9%

9%

7%

7%

6%

6%

5%

5%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10% 11%

10%

7%

8%

8%

9%

9%

8%

8%

7%

6%

6%

5%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

5%

7%

7%

8%

11%

9%

11%

8%

8%

9%

10%

8%

8%

8%

7%

5%

7%

5%

3%

3%

1%

2%

3%

6%

7%

7%

8%

9%

10% 10%

9%

8%

8%

8%

9%

8%

7%

6%

7%

4%

5%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

4%

6%

6%

8%

9%

9%

8%

7%

9%

9%

8%

7%

6%

7%

6%

6%

4%

2%

2%

8%

1%

2%

1%

2%

3%

4%

7%

7%

8%

7%

8%

7%

8%

7%

6%

5%

6%

6%

6%

4%

5%

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

5%

10% 10%

8%

8%

6%

4%

5%

6%

6%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

3%

3%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 1113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Source: EU CARE database, EU27 countries, Norway and Switzerland, 2005-2010

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 27

The general pattern was for most fatal and injury crashes to occur in low speed limit zones, which islikely to reflect greater cycling exposure in built-up areas. For fatal crashes in particular, there was asecond peak in 70-80kmph zones, presumably reflecting higher chance of fatality for crashes occurring at
higher speeds. The impact of traffic speed on cycle crash risk and severity highlights the value of speed
management as "hidden infrastructure" that protects cyclists.
Recommendation 9:
Speed management acts as “hidden infrastructure” protecting cyclists and should be included as anintegral part of cycling safety strategies.
Though there is likely to be relatively little cycling at night, a fairly high percentage of fatal crashes
occur at night in several countries. Further, there is a noticeable spike in crashes just as night falls inmany countries. Thus, there is an argument for directing resources to improve cycling safety not only inpeak periods but also at night.
The very young and the very old are disproportionately represented in serious crash-related
injuries across a number of countries – with fatal crash rates for the latter reaching alarming
proportions in some countries.
The distribution of cyclist traffic fatalities by age group is similar for most countries and follows a
u-shaped curve though some countries display a flatter distribution than others Generally those over 65
years old represent a significantly large proportion of cyclist fatalities. Korea and Japan, two countries
with a significant share of older people, are especially confronted with bicycle crash fatalities andinjuries among the old – e.g. in Korea 65% of bicycle fatalities were aged over 60 (2009) and in Japan,
70% of bicycle fatalities were aged over 60 (average 2005-2010)
One explanation for the over-representation of the elderly in fatal cycle crashes is the more severe
consequences of crashes due to the sometimes lessoned physical condition of many older people. In
particular the combination of more brittle bones, less elastic soft tissue weakened locomotive functions
including reaction times results in more crashes for this population group and more severe crashoutcomes. For children, a combination of factors may be at play: a greater propensity to expose
themselves to crash risk and the location of crash contact points between motor vehicles and their bodies(head and upper body)
Collisions appear to more common than single bicycle crashes for serious and fatal injuries
but this finding may reflect reporting bias.
For crashes resulting in serious and fatal injuries, collisions appear to be more common than falls,
and collisions with motor vehicles most common of all. Although this is may partly reflect a samplingbias in the police-recorded data, because collisions with motor vehicles are likely to have the mostserious outcomes and thus warrant police attention. Indeed, one study finds that for non-fatal minor
accidents recorded in a prospective cohort study of Belgian cyclists, “slipping” represents 33% of all
crashes and 36% of injuries (with collisions with cars represent only 11% of crashes and 19% of
injuries). This is consistent with that study’s conclusion that such minor crashes are underreported inpolice records. Another study of cyclists reporting to emergency departments in California, New York,and North Carolina found that 70% of the bicycle injury events did not involve a motor vehicle, and 31%
occurred in non-roadway locations (such as sidewalks, parking lots, or off-road trails), althoughbicyclists struck by motor vehicles in the roadway tended to be the most seriously injured. Spain appears
to have a particular issue with collisions with trains – which appear to almost always be fatal. In counties

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

28 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

with high bicycle traffic (Belgium and Denmark) crashes with other cycles account for 5% of injury
crashes (but fewer fatal crashes).
While cars remain (by far) the most common crash opponent for cyclists, crash outcomes withheavy goods vehicles are disproportionately serious and warrant special measures.
Cars represent the most common crash opponent for cyclists in serious injury and fatal crashes.
Heavy goods vehicles were the most common crash opponent following passenger cars for mostcountries reporting this data. Comparing the involvement of trucks in fatal versus serious injury crashes
reveals the disproportionate risk of death for cyclists in truck-bicycle collisions and the need to addressthese types of crashes. Light goods vehicles and motorised two wheelers are also significant crash
opponents in some countries, in some cases figuring more frequently than heavy goods vehicles.
Recommendation 10:
Safety policy should target crashes between Heavy Goods Vehicle and Bicycles crashes due to theespecially serious consequences of these crashes and their (relative) frequency.
Drawing broad conclusions regarding cyclist versus motorist fault in serious injury and fatal
cycle crashes is challenging though evidence indicates that cyclists are not predominantly (and inmany cases, principally) at fault.
It is difficult to draw a general conclusion regarding cyclist vs. motorist “fault” in fatal and serious
injury bicycle crashes across countries due to the limited amount of available and comparable data. It
seems plausible that for fatal crashes, the fact that the cyclist cannot provide input regarding crashcausation may bias outcomes. Having clearly defined right-of-way rules may better frame theoperationalisation and reporting of “fault” – this is the case for some countries such as Denmark.
Recommendation 11:
Cyclists should not be the only target of cycling safety policies – motorists are at least as important totarget.
Metropolitan areas dominate in terms of crash numbers; rural crashes are disproportionately
fatal or severe in several countries.
Fatal and serious injury crashes are typically more common in metropolitan than in nonmetropolitan areas. This may be because most cycling takes place in urban areas in most countries. For
fatal crashes, a minority of countries demonstrated a reversal in this pattern, whereas crashes wereroughly evenly distributed across metropolitan and non-metropolitan or more common in nonmetropolitan areas. For injury crashes all respondent countries adhered to the general pattern, althoughsome countries, such as Belgium and Spain, have relatively more injury crashes in non-metropolitan
areas than other countries. These patterns are likely to reflect where the most cycling occurs, in
combination with the density and speed of traffic in these areas. Thus, in Belgium and Spain may have agreater amount of cycling in non-metropolitan areas than other countries, and crashes in these areas
might often be fatal due to high traffic speed. For example, in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands andthe United Kingdom, urban areas accounted for 84%, 81%, 79% and 86%, respectively, of combined
killed and seriously injured cyclists whereas non-urban areas accounted for a disproportionate 36%,
41%, 37% and 40%, respectively, of all killed cyclists.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 29

Crashes are generally less common on cycling-specific infrastructure than on infrastructurethat is not cycling-specific.
Where it is reported, police-reported crashes are less common on cycling-specific infrastructure thanon infrastructure that is not cycling-specific – although arguably the cycling-specific infrastructure
carries more cycle traffic, particularly in some countries. Presumably this reflects a safety benefit
conferred by various aspects of cycling-specific infrastructure – such as separation from traffic, lower
speeds and speed differentials. Another possibility untested by the working group is that this finding may
also reflect a bias in the police-reported data. For example, in Australia, crashes are only reported topolice if they occur on a road (including a bicycle lane on a road). It is noteworthy that in Denmark
injury crashes are more common on on-road bicycle lanes than on roads not marked with bicycle lanes –perhaps reflecting exposure.
Junctions account for a disproportionate share of fatal and serious injury cycling crashes
given the amount of time that cyclists spend crossing them.
About one-quarter of all fatal crashes occurred within junctions for European countries reporting
this data though there is great variability amongst countries. Korea and the United States report higher
shares of junction-related crashes. Figures from Australia are lower perhaps reflecting the greater shareof fatal bicycle crashes in non-metropolitan areas where there are presumably fewer junctions. Given thatcyclists spend a great deal more of their time cycling not at a junction, these percentages indicate the risk
posed by junctions and the need for care when designing junctions to be “readable” by all traffic
participants and cycling-friendly.
Bicycle crashes outside of junctions tend to have more severe outcomes than junction-related
crashes.
For Europe, non-junction areas account for a proportionately greater share of fatal (64%) thanserious injury bicycle crashes (40%). Likewise junctions account for a smaller percentage of fatal (29%)
versus serious injury (41%) bicycle crashes. One possible explanation for this is that motor vehicle
speeds are typically higher outside junctions than in junctions and thus when non-junction crashes occur,
the consequences are likely to be more serious for cyclists.
Recommendation 12:
Cycle safety policies should pay close attention to junction design – visibility, predictability and speed
reduction should be incorporated as key design principles.
V. Review of Bicycle Safety Measures: Lessons for Policy
Policies must account for cyclist heterogeneity
User or cyclist heterogeneity is important to account-for as well when planning safety interventions.
There is no single type of cyclist - there are old and very young cyclists, experienced and inexperienced
cyclists, commuting and recreational cyclists, etc. High impact safety policies should be tailored to reachas many types of cyclists as possible or, alternatively, seek to target specific cycling publics. Furthermore
safety policies seeking to attract new cyclists may have to be different in scope and content as thoseaiming to improve the safety of those who already ride bicycles.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

30 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 13:
Authorities should match investments in cycle safety to local contexts, including levels of bicycle usage
and account for cyclist heterogeneity.
Dual but interlinked goals: increase safety and increase perceived safety.
Cities are simultaneously seeking to entice citizens to start cycling while at the same time keeping
those already cycling safe. Policy seeking to increase cycling and improve safety must approach safetywith two interlinked objectives: reducing actual crash rates and their severity and, crucially, increasing
the perception of safety for potential cyclists. If citizens don´t feel safe cycling – then they will not ride if
there is an alternative they perceive as safer. If on the other hand citizens feel confident that risks aremanaged along cycling routes the road traffic system is designed with their safety in mind, then they arelikely to take up or increase their bicycle travel. Addressing both objective and perceived safety
improvements will require slightly different but necessarily coordinated approaches.
Recommendation 14:
Cycle safety plans should address safety improvement and the improvement of perceived safety.
Non-infrastructure measures can improve safety, but they should not be the sole focus ofpolicy.
Safety measures for cycling can be broadly categorised as those measures seeking to reduce thenegative outcomes of crashes (e.g. vehicle design and helmets) and those that seek to avoid crashes.
These are not incompatible but implementing the latter is likely a necessary pre-condition for increasing
cycling levels. This report reviews a number of non-infrastructure-related safety measures. Some of thesehave documented safety effects on crash reduction (e.g. night-time lights and reflective devices for
cyclists), others have less documented evidence or unclear findings even though they intuitively would
seem to reduce crash risk (e.g. convex mirrors covering lorry drivers’ blind spots). More robust
investigation of the crash-reduction effect of certain polices is called for.
Helmet usage reduces the severity of head injuries from cycle crashes but may lead tocompensating behaviour that otherwise erodes safety gains.
One area that has received vigorous research focus is on the safety impact of bicycle helmet usage
and helmet-wearing mandates. As discussed below, these two must be treated separately.
Studies addressing the safety impact of helmets can generally be split into two groups: those that
focus on the way in which bicycle helmets change the injury risk for individual cyclists in case of a crashand those that focuses on the generalised safety effect of introducing measures (typically campaigns
and/or legislation) to increase helmet usage among cyclist. The first group generally finds that wearing abicycle helmet reduces the risk of sustaining a head injury in a crash and may slightly increase the risk ofneck or facial injuries (head injuries are among the most severe outcomes of cycle crashes) though recent
re-analysis of previous studies suggests that this effect is less than previously thought. To be clear -these studies indicate reduced risk of head injury for a single cyclist in case of a crash. The effects mustnot be mistaken for the safety effects of mandatory helmet legislation or other measures to enhancehelmet usage.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 31

The safety effect of mandatory helmet legislation as such has been evaluated in far fewer studies.
The safety effect of mandatory helmet legislation is a result of a series of factors:

reduced injury risk (due to increased helmet usage)

increased crash risk (due to an often claimed change in behaviour amongst cyclists whotake up wearing a helmet)less cycling (leading to a reduced number of accidents and injuries, but also to a higher
accident risk for those who still bike)

Whether bicyclists change behaviour, when they start to use a bicycle helmet seems very uncertain(and difficult to prove), but it is evident that mandatory helmet use might reduce the total number ofbicyclists. It is also possible that cyclists who continue to bike might represent a behaviour which isdifferent from the behaviour of those who stop biking. In the end this could very well lead to an overallchange in behaviour.
Infrastructure-related measures help resolve issues linked to the visibility of cyclists,
predictability at junctions and differences in traffic speed, especially when broadly andconsistently deployed.
This report reviews evidence on the safety-improving effect of different type of cycle infrastructure
and infrastructure treatment (e.g. lane painting). Adequate infrastructure that matches levels of cycle use
is a pre-condition for improving cycle safety in the Safe System approach. Cycle infrastructure (just as
any road infrastructure) must meet minimum requirements for sight distances for both cyclists andmotorists. The aggregate safety effects of an extensive segregated bicycle infrastructure network may
contradict the evidence of the safety performance of its component parts. Why this should be is notclearly evident from the study of the safety impacts of individual measures but it has been the experienceof many countries that the coordinated, targeted and network-wide deployment of many bicycle safetymeasures along with sustained policy support and training of all road users contributes to high levels ofbicycle safety.
Adequate maintenance and enforcement of access rules ensures that the benefits of welldesigned bicycle infrastructure are achieved.
The effectiveness of safety-improving infrastructure treatments relies on ensuring that these operate
as intended. In order to do so, bicycle infrastructure must be maintained to a standard such that thecondition of the infrastructure does not contribute to crashes. This also requires that rules and regulations
regarding motor vehicle encroachment on bicycle facilities and governing bicycle-motor vehicle
interactions are enforced.
Recommendation 15:
The deployment of cycling infrastructure should be accompanied by adequate levels of maintenance andenforcement of access rules.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

32 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Traffic speed management should be deployed where appropriate to increase cycling safety.
Where appropriate (e.g. where authorities wish to increase cycling densities, where cycle traffic isconcentrated and in distributor road networks in urban areas) speeds should set to 30km/hr and lower for
mixed bicycle-motor vehicle carriageways. • In speed-control or traffic-calmed areas, care should begiven to the design of speed-control devices (humps, bollards, signage, etc.) as these may constitutehazards to cyclists.
Recommendation 16:
Where appropriate, traffic speeds should be limited to less than 30km/hr where bicycles and motorised
traffic mix but care should be taken so that speed control devices do not create hazards for cyclists.
Separation of bicycles from other traffic can also be effective where volumes or speeds
warrant.
Another fundamental design consideration is whether to separate cycle traffic from other roadtraffic. In this matter motor vehicle speed is a decisive factor. According to the Safe System Approach,bicycles should never cross motor vehicle traffic, where motor vehicle speed exceeds 30 km/h. In mostcountries the situation on the road network is very far from this scenario, and for most road authorities afull implementation of the Safe System Approach will only be possible to achieve incrementally.
Emphasis should be put on separating bicycles from motor vehicles on the roads with the highest speed
levels and the highest traffic volumes, and slowing down traffic speed at junctions in areas where policy
seeks to retain or increase cycling.
Recommendation 17:
Where speeds cannot be lowered, or where justified by traffic densities, authorities should seek toseparate bicycle and motor traffic whenever feasible.
Bicycle tracks reduce crashes and crash severity and are generally perceived as safe but may
generate increased crash risks at junctions.
Separated bicycle tracks are an attractive option in that they generally produce fewer and less severecrashes in their linear sections – however this safety effect is often compromised at junctions, which maylead to an increased number of crashes and injuries.
Crash risk at bicycle track/road interfaces is exacerbated by poor sight lines, un-conspicuity ofcyclists to motorists and the difficulty motorists experience in anticipating the behaviour of cyclists andvice-versa. Proper design of junctions that eliminates obstacles along lines of sight, clearly signal likely
cyclist behaviour (e.g. cross-junction bicycle markings), physically demarcate cycling space (e.g.
continuous raised cycle track across side roads), separate and give priority to cyclists at junctions(advanced stop line, bike boxes) or harmonise behavioural expectations (e.g. truncated bicycle track) all
contribute to lower crash risk.
Junction design and treatment is perhaps the most important infrastructure-related safety
intervention. Ensuring that all traffic participants are visible, engage in predictable manoeuvres and thatdifferences in traffic speeds are minimised are key elements of good junction design.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 33

Recommendation 18:
Authorities must critically examine bicycle facility junction design and deploy known safety-improving
measures to decrease crash risks.
Safety impacts of individual measures are not necessarily additive and require site-specificdiagnosis.
The safety impacts of individual measures are not necessarily additive – the ultimate safety effect ofmultiple measures deployed on one site will largely depend on site-specific interactions. The selection
and implementation of bicycle safety measures should be based on a site-specific diagnosis andidentification of the safety problems to be treated. Bicycle safety audits as can be helpful in this respect.
Figure I.IV. Safety improvement from complete re-design of complex junction (Copenhagen)City of Copenhagen intersection redesign: H.C. Andersen Blvd. andJarmers Plaza.
As part of a comprehensive re-designof intersections on a major strategic
gateway to Copenhagen city centre,
this intersection was re-designed
entirely to reduce crashes and personal
injuries while maintaining motorised
and non-motorised vehicle capacity. 5year ex-post evaluation results included
a 58% reduction of all crashes, a 50%
reduction of all injury crashes and a
70% reduction of left-turn crashes.

a

b

c

c

a

d
e

b

f

g

Truncated cycle track (1)Proven safety measure
allows cyclists and cars to
self-sort as they approach
the junction.

Truncated cycle track (2)Crash-reduction effects
are significant due to low
speed and better carbicycle awareness.

Refuge cycle track (1):allows cyclists on track toturn to nearside without
coming into conflict withnearside-turning vehicles.

dSignalised cyclist
crossing(1): special
signal phase for cyclists to
cut across offside-turning
vehicles before continuing
straight.

eSignalised cycle
crossing (2): special
signal phase for cyclists to
cut across nearside
turning vehicles before
signalcontinuing straight.

signalf

Refuge cycle track (2):allows bicycles and motor
vehicles to turn nearside
without coming into conflict
though pedestrian-bicycle
conflicts may arise.

gColoured bicycle
crossing: Signals bicycle
crossing path to motorists– to be used sparingly andonly for priority conflictzones.

Source: City of Copenhagen

Cycling infrastructure is important, targeted design and coordinated policies even more so.
Countries and cities that have successfully improved bicycle safety have done so via a coordinatedset of policies and measures at both the tactical (design of specific safety interventions) and strategic(“safe system” approach) levels. Success requires coordinating both of these approaches in a supportive
regulatory environment. On the tactical level, diagnosis of safety improvement targets must be built on
crash and traffic monitoring so that effective responses may be designed and implemented. Rarely will
isolated safety interventions satisfactorily improve safety and in some cases, uncoordinated responses
might make things worse. Figure I.IV illustrates how safety improvements may result from wholesale redesign of critical elements of the traffic environment – in this case, a series of complete junction re-

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

34 – KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

designs along a major thoroughfare entering the Copenhagen city centre. Here only one of several treatedjunctions is shown but similar results were found for other junction re-designs in the project – e.g. 3964% reduction for all crashes, 39-78% reduction for all injury crashes and 64-76% reduction in offsideturning crashes.
New or improved infrastructure can also spur more cycling - and stimulate public demand for more
and better solutions. Ultimately, specific interventions should be matched to specific safety
shortcomings. Improving bicycle safety requires building on proven interventions and adapting them tolocal conditions. The trouble-shooting table that follows (Table I.I) is based on the findings detailed in
the report and should be seen as an indicative guide to potential infrastructure-related solutions forcommonly found bicycle safety problems. These are not prescriptive (indeed, they could not be giventhat implementing all of these would lead to conflicting traffic situations) but serve as a guide tounderstanding possible solutions for particular, oftentimes site-specific, bicycle safety hotspots.
Table I.I Trouble-shooting table : Infrastructure measures and bicycle safety
Accident problem

Hypothesis

Possible solutions

Speeds are too highSpeed reducing measures
Narrowing of lanes with edge line

Narrow, dense traffic

Bicycle lanes/bicycle and pedestrian path

Darkness, moist weather

Road lighting
Campaigns on the use of bicycle lights

Road side parking

Prohibit parking/stopping

Accidents with bicyclists hitting parked
cars

Narrow roads

Markings (parking lane)

Accidents with bicyclists hitting
pedestrians

Accidents concentrated

Refuge/verge
Raised pedestrian crossing

Wide street, accidents spread out

Center island

Sight distance from stop position notenoughClose entrance
Improve sight distance

Bicyclists are overlooked/lack of attention
because of dense and fast traffic

Close entrance
Speed reducing measures, reduce numberof lanes

Bicyclists go in the wrong direction

Sight distance improved in both directions

No sight distance in mirrors

Prohibit nearside turn
Prohibit stopping
Remove trees and other obstacles fromverge
Remove or narrow verge
Close entrance

Road sections
Accidents with bicyclists being run overfrom behind

Prohibit parking

Entrances to private properties
Bicyclists on bicycle path are hit by carsfrom the entrance

Nearside turning cars/lorries hit bicyclists
going straight ahead on bicycle path

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS – 35

Priority junctions in general
Accidents with offside turning vehicles
hitting bicycles driving straight on bicycle
path

Sight distance; check parked cars along
bicycle path

Sight distance along bicycle path improved
Prohibit offside turn
Prohibit stopping

Insufficient orientation

Blue bicycle markings
Speed reducing measures

Too high speeds

More narrow design

Problem with sight distance/Signs andother obstacles are blocking view

Improve sight distance
Replace signs and obstacles

Bicyclists are overlooked

Bicycle markings on road
Change of roundabout design/priority

Too high speeds

More narrow design

Problem with sight distance/Signs andother obstacles are blocking view

Improve sight distance by removing verge
Replace signs and obstacles

Roundabouts
Bicyclists are hit by entering vehicles

Bicyclists are hit by vehicles leaving theroundabout

Bicycle markings on road
Change of roundabout design/priority
Signalised intersections
Turning cars hit bicyclists

Bicyclists are overlooked

Cross-junction bicycle markings
Avoid pre-green for nearside turning
vehiclesRight-angle collisions in far end of big
junctionsInsufficient clearance phase for slow
bicyclists

Increase amber phase

Bicyclists turn offside in front of straightgoing traffic

No waiting area or signal for cyclists

Establish waiting area
Separate signal/phase for bicyclists

Bicyclists cross on red

Long waiting time

Retime signal

Nearside turning cars/lorries hit straightgoing bicyclists

Not sufficient sight in mirrors

Staggered stop line for cars
Remove verge
Cut back bicycle track

Sight OK, but insufficient orientation

Separate regulation
Cut back bicycle track
Pre-green stage for cyclists
Avoid pre-green for nearside turning cars

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 37

1. Cycling, safety, health and policy – necessary linkages,
suggested approaches

Many countries are promoting cycling as a way to improve health and quality of life while
reducing the negative impacts of transport in terms of congestion and pollution. Safety, however,is a key concern since cyclists are relatively unprotected road users. This chapter addresses the key
issues relating to cycling safety and links them to a greater discussion of health, safety andcycling. The deleterious impact of crashes on cyclists’ health is only one part of the health impactsof cycling – and it is often overvalued in policy discussions. This chapter examines the full rangeof health impacts and discusses critical elements necessary for cycling policy evaluation. It alsosuggests a way forward for framing cycling and road safety policy such that health benefits are
maximised.

1.1.

Pro-cycling Policies and Safety

Bicycles are an essential part of the urban mobility mix. They use no fossil energy, deliver
important health benefits, and can improve the liveability of cities. The attraction of the bicycle resides in
its ability to provide an affordable and seamless door-to-door mobility option. Cycling is as versatile aswalking but can cover greater distances at higher speeds. It represents an alternative to cars and allows
for greater freedom of movement than scheduled public transport services. When combined with thelatter, bicycles can also extend the range and attractiveness of public transport. Bicycles may decrease
pollution and congestion if they successfully replace automobile traffic1. Bicycles are well suited torespond to the great number of short to medium distance trips that are typical of urban travel. While
powered two-wheelers offer similar advantages, they also impose greater societal costs linked to crashfrequency and outcomes as well as air pollution.
That many cities are introducing advanced public bike systems is a clear indication that bicycling is
becoming a central part of the mobility solution in many urban settings (see Figure 1.1). Beyond publicbike sharing systems, there are a number of pro-cycling policies and frameworks that are being
implemented throughout International Transport Forum member countries2. Crucially, however, while
there are many reasons to promote cycling, safety per se is not foremost among them in most countries.
In fact, the improvement of cyclists’ safety is a central element of many pro-cycling policies sinceevidence points to vulnerability of cyclists in road traffic.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

38 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Figure 1.1 Example of pro-cycling policies: Public Bicycle sharing systems worldwide in 2012

Barcel.

London Paris
Europe333 Cities
109 000 Bicycles

Montreal

Wuhan

BerlinN. America
30 Cities
15 500 Bicycles

S. America
9 Cities
2 000 Bicycles

Hangzhou Yantai
Rest of World
24 Cities
10 000 Bicycles

Shanghai

China
47 Cities
252 000 Bicycles

Source: ITF, data from Data from MetroBike, LLC (http://www.MetroBike.net, accessed 12 December, 2012)

How dangerous is cycling compared to other modes? Statistics (see Table 1) and studies detailingthe comparative risk of injury or death for cyclists versus car occupants find significantly higher risks perunit of exposure for cyclists: e.g. 7.5 times higher injury risk and 6 times more fatality risk per kilometrein Norway (Elvik, 2009) (Vegdirektoratet, et al 2009), 6 times higher fatality risk per kilometre for the
Netherlands (IRTAD, 2011)(SWOV, 2011), 15 times more injury/fatality risk per hour of travel in New
Zealand (Tin Tin, Woodward and Ameratunga 2010). In a meta-analysis of data from Denmark, GreatBritain, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) find that cyclists face 9.4 times
the risk of being injured per kilometre as car occupants. Part of this disproportionate risk may stem froma bias in the data; an important share of car travel is comprised of relatively “safe” motorway kilometres.
One Dutch study compared risks of fatal crashes for motorists and cyclists (including the risk to othertraffic participants) excluding relatively “safe” motorway travel and found relatively similar mortality
rates for cyclists and car occupants (21.0 and 20.8 deaths per million kilometres travelledrespectively)(Dekoster and Schollaert 1999). Another Belgian study found that the relative risk of getting
killed while cycling versus car travel dropped by 20%3 if controlling for motorway travel(Hubert andToint 2002). Whether these finding hold for other countries or regions is unclear and requires further
study.
An additional element to consider when assessing the relative safety of cycling versus other modesis the selection of the exposure variable. We discuss issues related to lack of availability of exposure data
further on but note here that the type of exposure variable selected (risk per trip, per distance or per
duration) is not without consequence. For instance, the United Kingdom’s 2007 Road Casualties Annual
Report found that cyclists faced 13 times more fatalities than car occupants per 100 million kilometres oftravel but only 4 times more fatalities per 100 million hours of travel or trips (Department for Transport2008).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 39

It is not clear that changing the exposure variable results in a consistently different relative risk level –for instance, (Martensen and Nuyttens 2009) finds that fatality risk per minute travelled is essentially thesame for cyclists and motorists in Belgium whereas this is not the case for New Zealand (Tin Tin,
Woodward and Ameratunga 2010) (though the latter looks at both serious injury and fatality risk).
Table 1.1 Relative risk for cyclists vs. other modes, selected countries (index, car driver=1)
Below are indicators of relative risk of death and/or serious injury for a selection of countries reporting safety and kilometre-,
trip- or duration-based exposure statistics for cyclists. Note that because of differences in reporting methodologies and coverage,
especially for non-fatal injuries, the figures below should not be used to compare relative risk between countries, but rather toevaluate relative risk between modes within one country.

Cycling

Walking

Moped

Motorcycle

Car (driver)Car (pass.)

Netherlandsa : Annual number of killed per billion kilometres of travel, 2007-2009
5.9

9.1

30.0

30.0

1.0

18.0

1.0

10.2

1.0

Switzerland b: Annual number of killed per billion kilometres of travel, 2010
11.2

9.1

f

Norway : Annual number of killed per billion kilometres of travel, 1998-2002
5.9

8.4

United Kingdomg : Annual number of killed per billion kilometres of travel, 2008-2011
14.4

16.9

51.3

1.0

Denmarka : Annual number of casualties (killed and injured) per billion kilometres of travel, 2010
10.6

10.2

148.9

44.1

1.0

58.3

1.0

United Statesc : Annual number of killed per billion trips, 1999-2003
2.3

1.5

Belgiumd : Annual number of killed per billion minutes spent travelling, 2005
1.2

0.8

12.9

1.0

e

New Zealand : Annual number of injuries resulting in death or hospitalisation per million hours spent travelling, 20032007
14.6

1.1

..

Sources:a. (IRTAD 2011),
b. Swiss Federal Statistics Office (www.bfms.admin.ch), accessed October 15, 2012
c. (Beck, Dellinger and O’Neil 2007),
d. (Martensen and Nuyttens 2009),
e. (Tin Tin, Woodward and Ameratunga 2010),
f. (Vegdirektoratet, et al 2009),
g. UKDFT Road Safety Annual Report – Table RAS53001.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

51.2

1.0

1.4

40 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Box 1.1 Crash Risk Factors and Cycling
Participating in traffic is an inherently dangerous activity given the combination of multiple direct and indirect risk
factors. Though much has been accomplished to reduce these risk factors or to reduce the likelihood of these risks resulting ininjury crashes, they still persist. Below, we outline principal crash risk factors and discuss their relevance for cycling.
Fundamental Risk Factors
Speed: Evidence indicates that speed (absolute speed and relative speed differences among traffic participants) is
positively correlated to an exponential increase in crash risk. Speed is also correlated to crash severity as it is an importantcomponent of kinetic energy which, in crashes involving bicycles, is directly released onto unprotected soft body tissue andskeletal systems.
Mass and Protection: Mass is the other component of kinetic energy. At constant speed, the larger the mass, thegreater the amount of kinetic energy released. For cyclist crashes with heavier opponents (motor vehicles) the massdifferential can be extreme thus contributing to increased severity of crash outcomes for cyclists. Protection can help absorb
some of the crash-released kinetic energy but motor vehicles offer very much greater levels of protective engineering thancycling equipment (typically limited only to helmets, if worn).
Contributory Factors from Road Users
Lack of experience: For cycling, there is a difference between knowing how to cycle and knowing how to cycle in aroad environment. Both may be addressed by early education but in cases of late adoption of cycling, special training might
be desirable for adult cyclists since experience from motor vehicle driving may not be directly transferable to cycling. In
addition, late adoptees of cycling may require fundamental training on the use of a bicycle.
Impaired use (Drugs and Alcohol): Use of drugs or alcohol, or both, significantly increases risk for road users. Single
bike crash severity for cyclists may be lower than single motor vehicle crash severity (largely due to speed and massdifferences) but risk-taking by impaired cyclists could expose them to greater involvement in motor vehicle-bicycle crashes(with largely detrimental outcomes for the cyclist). It may be that impaired people opt to use a bicycle rather than a motor
vehicle in order to reduce their crash risk and in some jurisdictions, cyclists face lower blood alcohol limits than motorists(e.g. in Germany, the blood alcohol limit for car use is set at 0.05%, whereas for cycling it is 0.16%) (Juhra, et al., 2011).
This is a practice worth re-assessing using available evidence on alcohol use and bicycle injury crashes.
Illnesses or Ailments: Visual or auditory impairment can be a contributing factor in bicycle crashes. The latter
especially may be a factor in crashes resulting from overtaking. Wearing headphones may mimic this risk.
Emotion and Aggression: Anecdotally, crash risk exacerbation from aggressive behavior in traffic seems to be mainly
attributable to motorists. This is not to say that aggressive behavior on the part of cyclists does not contribute to crashes –especially when it is combined with risk-taking behavior vis-à-vis other cyclists and pedestrians.
Fatigue and Distraction: Fatigue increases the risk of crash involvement. Cyclists may be even more prone to fatigue
since cycling requires energy expenditure further complicating an already fatigued state. On the other hand, fatigued people
may avoid cycling altogether or may find themselves becoming less tired as they cycle because of the beneficial impact ofphysical activity. Distraction may also be a contributing factor to crash risk for cyclists – especially for those using mobile
phones or other electronic devices. The latter is an area where more research can help guide safety policy, especially as use ofmobile ICT devices is increasing (Scheppers 2007).
Source: Adapted from (Wegman and Aarts 2006)CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 41

The majority of trips are made in view of travelling from point to point, not for travelling during a
set amount of time. Because of this distance-based exposure variables have (when available) typically
been seen as a superior measure of relative risk for equivalent trips. In reality, trips by bicycle and by car
are not necessarily equivalent and travellers may adjust mode choice according to a wide range of factors(availability of parking, exposure to congestion, amenities at the destination, ease of linking with othermodes, etc). For instance, although average trip lengths are greater for cars than for bicycles in Belgium,
average per-trip travel time is roughly equivalent (Martensen and Nuyttens 2009). International data islacking to estimate comparative risks of cycling per travel duration but this indicator may be lower thanrelative risk indicators based on travel distance. (Van Hout 2007) found that the relative risk of death perhour of travel was roughly equal between cyclists and car occupants in Belgium in 1999. Duration-based
indicators of relative risk may be appropriate in instances where the duration of cycling and car trips isnearly the same — for example, in congested urban areas where cycling speeds are equal to, if not
greater, than car speed.
Part of the “built-in” lack of safety of cycling is that the road system has, with some notable
exceptions, not been designed for cyclists. More precisely, the road system has not been designed for
mixing well-protected, heavy and high velocity vehicles with unprotected, lightweight and slower road
users. Furthermore, the traffic system does not typically account for the specific characteristics of cyclists
and bicycles. Cyclists are highly flexible and sometimes unpredictable road users, riders display very
different abilities, cyclists seek to minimise energy expenditure, bicycles can be easily de-stabilised andare relatively difficult to see because of their size (in daytime) and their poor or lack of night-timelighting. Cyclists are also often seen by motorists as intruders in the road system.
Given the vulnerability of cyclists in traffic, those seeking to promote cycling must address afundamental question: do policies that increase the number of cyclists contribute to less safety and morecrashes?
This is an important question because if cyclists are vulnerable and the road system is not designed
for cycling, then pro-cycling policies could conceivably expose a greater number of people to potentially
dangerous conditions. The short answer to this question is that when the number of cyclists increase, thenumber of crashes, both fatal and non-fatal, may increase as well – but not necessarily so if attention ispaid to good policy design. Furthermore, the incidence rate of cycling crashes may decrease, especially if
accompanying safety-improving policies are implemented. Thus while the number of crashes may
increase, cycling safety -- measured by the number of crashes per some measure of exposure (e.g. trips,
cyclists, time cycling, distance travelled) -- may improve. A fuller answer to this question must address
four crucial factors whose understanding is essential in the cycling safety debate:The linkage between cycling, safety and health

The safety in numbers effect

The strong under-reporting bias in cycling crash statistics

The lack of adequate exposure dataCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

42 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

1.2.

Linkages between Cycling, Safety and HealthA discussion of the impact of cycling on road safety should not be isolated from a broader
discussion of the overall health impacts of cycling. Indeed, if we are concerned that increasing thenumber of cyclists may increase crash numbers or risks, it is because of the deleterious effects of crashinduced injuries on cyclists’ health. Injuries from crashes, however, are not the only health endpoint fromcycling – exposure to air pollution can negatively impact cyclists’ health just as cycling-related exercise
can (greatly) improve cyclists’ health. Pursuing increased safety for cycling (e.g. reducing crash risk andthe severity of crash outcomes) makes sense no matter what the balance of positive/negative healthoutcomes from cycling since these policies expressly reduce the negative outcomes linked to crashes.
Understanding the balance of positive/negative health outcomes from cycling, however, is essential in
helping frame efforts to increase cycling.
Health benefits of cycling: Physical Activity
The World Health Organization recommends that adults participate in at least 30 minutes ofmoderate exercise 5 days a week and more intensive training a few times every week. Cycling, as amoderate physical activity, can significantly reduce clinical health risks linked to cardiovascular disease,obesity, Type-2 diabetes, certain forms of cancer, osteoporosis and depression. Taken separately andeven more so when effects are cumulative, these conditions exact a high human and economic cost on
society. This health improving-effect is robust across different studies and in different geographic
contexts (Tables 1.2 and 1.3). There is evidence that the range of morbidity-reducing effects are
significant as well – not only does cycling reduce disease-related deaths for cyclists but it also
contributes to substantially better health (Rabl and de Nazelle 2012).
Health Impacts of Physical Inactivity“Physical inactivity is one of the most important health challenges of the 21st century because of its influence on
the most deadly chronic diseases, contributing worldwide to 21.5% of ischemic heart disease, 11% of ischemic
stroke, 14% of diabetes, 16% of colon cancer and 10% of breast cancer (Bull, et al. 2004). The World HealthOrganization (WHO) recently estimated overweight and obesity to be responsible for 2.8 million deaths
annually; physical inactivity is (separately) responsible for an additional 3.2 million deaths.”
Source: (de Nazelle, et al. 2011)

Table 1.2 Quantified relative risk of all-cause mortality for cyclists compared to non-cyclists
Relative risk expressed as a ratio of all cause mortality of cyclists compared to non-cyclists after controlling for confounding
factors (age, gender, education, etc.) – e.g. a relative risk result of 0.70 indicates that a cyclist has a 30% reduction in risk ofdeath compared to a similar non-cyclist.

Location

Relative mortality risk
(cycling/non-cycling)

Confidence interval

Study

Copenhagen, DK

0.72

0.57-0.91

Anderson et al, 2000

China

0.79

0.61-1.01

Matthews et al, 2007

China (high activity)

0.66

0.40-1.07

Matthews et al, 2007

Finland0.78

0.65-0.92

Hu et al, 2004

Finland (high activity)

0.69

0.57-0.84

Hu et al, 2004CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 43

Evidence suggests that this health-improving effect is not linear – that is, the greatest benefit for asedentary person occurs simply from becoming active and further health benefits reduce with each
additional increment of moderate activity (US DHHS 2008). Evidence of the non-linearity of benefits(e.g. the dose-response relationship) varies according to pathology and for some pathologies therelationship is unclear. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that the health benefits of cyclists are greatest
for those who were previously sedentary or displayed modest levels of exercise. It also appears that thehealth gains from physical activity are greater for frequent and recurrent bouts of moderate exercise as
opposed to occasional periods of higher-intensity exercise (Praznoczy 2012). Successfully attracting noncyclists or otherwise inactive people will deliver the greatest health benefits from physical activity but
will require a good understanding of their perceptions of safety (see Chapter 4) and of the specific safety
challenges posed by inexperienced cyclists.
Table 1.3 Quantified relative risk estimates for selected diseases from 2.5 hours per week ofmoderate physical activity*
DiseaseRelative risk (exercise vs. sedentary) – Square root
model

Study

Cardiovascular disease

0.82(Hamer and Chida, 2008).

Colon cancer (men)0.87(Harriss, et al. 2009)

Colon cancer (women)

0.91(Harriss, et al. 2009)

Breast cancer**

0.87(Harriss, et al. 2009)

Dementia

0.82(Hamer and Chida 2009)

Depression

0.86(Paffenbarger,
1994)

Diabetes

0.82(Jeon, et al. 2007)

Lee

and

Leung

* RR normalised to 2.5 hrs moderate physical activity in (Woodcock, et al. 2009)** Linear model

Health benefits of cycling: Reduced air pollution
Some researchers suggest that a secondary health benefit from cycling (not just for cyclists) may be
the improvement of local air quality due to bicycle traffic replacing other, mostly car-based, travel.
Replacing short car trips with cycling or walking could result in a disproportionate reduction of volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) and fine particulate matter emissions since a large share of these emissions
are emitted in the first few minutes of motor vehicle operation (e.g. cold-start emissions) and thus overdistances easily replaced by bike trips (Grabow, et al. 2012).
While the potential for air quality-related health improvement is important, the extent to which thisbenefit is realised depends on how successfully pro-bike policies reduce a significant share of car travel.
The realisation of this potential also depends on the emissions profile of cars whose trips are susceptible
to being replaced.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

44 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHESWith the exception of the Netherlands and Denmark, and some specific urban areas, it is not clearthat pro-cycling policies have led to a significant reduction of car traffic, at least at present. One reason
for this is that, at least initially, new cyclists seem to switch not from cars but from public transport andwalking. For instance, (Börjesson and Eliasson 2011) find in a survey in Stockholm that only 13% of
cyclists identified the car as their second-best travel alternative. Likewise, only 10% of Barcelona’s
Bicing users, 5%.of Lyon’s Vélo’v users and 2%4 of Montréal’s Bixi users would have used a car absent
bikesharing (Ajuntament di Barcelona 2007) (Beroud 2010).(Bachand-Marleau, Larsen and El-Geneidy2011). The initial potential for mode shift seems low – in central Lyon and Villeurbanne, the public
bicycle system Vélo’v was found to have replaced less than 0.01% of all car travel. However, it should
be noted that car-bicycle replacement might be greater if measures are taken that reduce average trip
distances (e.g. by increasing density) with a correspondingly larger health impact.
Air pollution health benefits from car trip reduction could potentially be more significant in areas
with fewer walking and public transport opportunities (though these areas may be ill-suited for cycling aswell). In areas undergoing rapid motorisation, air quality benefits from retaining cycling and walking
shares could be high -- (Shaheen, et al. 2011) find that 16% of users of Huangzhou’s bikesharing system
replaced car trips (78% for users from car owning households) and that 37% state they have postponed
buying a car. Over time, if pro-cycling policies are sustained, new cyclists may indeed switch from cars.
If that is the case, the health-improving impact from reduced air pollution may be positive but lagged
though evidence is lacking on this point5.
To be clear, reductions of pollutant levels (especially those of fine particulate matter, ozone (O 3)
and NO2) from automobiles and other motorised traffic6 have been shown to have significant beneficial
health impacts. What is less clear is the extent to which uptake of cycling will lead to strong enough
reductions in motorised traffic such that these benefits are realised and research suggests that this is not
the case (van Kempen, et al., 2010). As a general rule, it may be more appropriate to take into account air
pollution impacts from switches from public transport and walking (rather than from mainly cars) tocycling when assessing the initial health impacts of pro-cycling policies.
Another factor to consider is the relationship between pollutant emissions and exposure topollutants. Pro-cycling measures are often comprised of (or accompanied by) policies seeking to calm
traffic, increase urban densities or mix land uses such that longer trips by car are replaced with shorter
trips by foot, bicycle or public transport. When successful, overall pollutant emissions may decrease
whereas exposure to pollutants may paradoxically increase. This is because of a shift in proximity
between emission sources and people due to densification and from the configuration of high-density
urban settings (e.g. increased incidence of “canyon” streets7).
Should pro-cycling urban design policies increase the incidence of stop-and-go traffic, local
pollutant concentrations may also increase as a result of repeated engine acceleration. Evidence from astudy in Vancouver confirms the paradox of higher density, more polluted neighbourhoods (undercurrent traffic regimes) – dense, multi-use neighbourhoods (e.g. “walkable” or bicycle-friendly
neighbourhoods) were found to have high levels of primary traffic-related pollution (NO) thoughsecondary pollutants such as ozone were found to be lower8 (Marshall, Brauer and Frank 2009). In these
instances, the balance of overall health impacts may see the individual physical activity-linked healthgain for cyclists be eroded by a collective air-pollution linked decrease in health for all other inactive
local residents remaining in high density and relatively more polluted neighbourhoods. This of course isa sub-optimal outcome of urban policies and underscores the need to manage traffic volumes proactively
and tackle pollutant emissions alongside urban policies seeking to increase density or shorten trips.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 45

Where pro-cycling policies replace car trips, the air quality health benefit will be proportionate to
the amount of displaced air pollution. New automobiles emit fewer and fewer air pollutants andconsiderable progress has been made to reduce disproportionately more polluting “cold-start” emissions.
At the same time, ultra-low emission technologies, mainly in the form of hybrid drivetrains (and somebattery electric vehicles), are penetrating many national fleets. This would seem to suggest that themarginal air pollution reduction benefit from car-bicycle trip replacement will decrease over time.
However, if pro-bicycle policies successfully lead to the replacement of car travel by the most polluting
and older vehicles in the fleet, the air pollution reduction benefit could be significant. There seems to be
insufficient evidence at this time to quantify this potential impact.
Other health Benefits of cycling
Other potential benefits from increased cycling include a reduction in traffic noise and a reductionof crash injuries from modes previously used by new cyclists.
Noise is an important environmental stressor increasing the risk of ischaemic heart disease,
contributing to cognitive impairment in children and disrupting sleep patterns (WHO 2011). Traffic noise
is a significant contributor to overall noise levels and some have postulated that pro-cycling policies may
reduce overall traffic noise. Not many studies have sought to quantify this effect -- one study that has
undertaken this analysis has found the health benefits of reduced noise due to a shift from cars to cycling
are minimal (van Kempen, et al., 2010). For the reasons exposed earlier it seems highly optimistic to
expect that cycling will decrease ambient traffic noise levels such that there is a city-wide positive healthimpact – though localised noise reduction is entirely likely.
An additional health impact could result from a reduction in the number of crash-related injuries anddeaths due to people switching from other modes to cycling. The sign and scale of this benefit is related
to the crash rate for those modes and the severity of injuries incurred. It is also related to the risk profileof those making the switch. For instance, a switch from public transport to cycling is not likely togenerate any benefit due to reduced crashes given that the former is typically safer than the latter. A
switch from cars to cycling, on the other hand, would reduce fatalities linked to car crashes, especially if
one includes pedestrians and cyclists hit by cars in addition to victims of car-only crashes. A study in thegreater Paris region has sought to quantify this effect under various mode shift scenarios. It finds that amodest increase of cycling to 4% of trips from its current level of 2%, assuming that only 5% of new
trips were previously made by car, would result in 0.4 fewer deaths per year compared to 5 new bicycle
crash-related deaths. However, at a 8% mode share for cycling (comparable to the cycling mode share ofseveral other European cities) and assuming 38% of new bicycle trips were previously made by car,avoided car-crash deaths would break even with new bicycle-crash deaths (Praznoczy 2012). Thisfinding helps frame the eventual crash fatality impact of long-term pro-bicycle policies – at some point,
avoided car crash deaths will outstrip newly generated bicycle crash deaths, all else equal. In reality, probicycle policies should seek to reduce all crash deaths and so these findings should hopefully only serve
to indicate that there is a dynamic and positive safety impact of switching bicycle traffic for car traffic.
Risk profiles matter as well as seen in data from the Netherlands in Table 1.4. Eighteen to twentyfour year-olds switching from cars to bikes would decrease their risk exposure for fatal crashes, at leastin the Netherlands. An early estimate of the overall health impact (including crash risk and exposure to
air pollution) from shifting from car travel to cycling also found that young males benefit most – largely
because of their car crash risk profile (van Kempen, et al, 2010). On the other hand, sixty-plus year old
drivers switching to cycling would greatly increase their risk exposure, all else held equal.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

46 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Table 1.4 Average number of killed per 1 billion vehicular kilometresin the Netherlands from 2007 to 2009 and relative risk
Age

18 - 24

25 - 29

30 - 39

40 - 49

50 - 59

60 - 74

75+

Cyclists

7.4

3.7

3.7

6.6

9.6

23.7

164.0

Car occupants

9.6

3.7

2.1

1.2

1.5

2.1

13.2

Relative risk, cycling vs. car

-0.23

-0.01

0.74

4.65

5.44

10.18

11.40

Source: SWOV, 2012

Health risks of cycling: Crash-related injuries for cyclists
Traffic infrastructure is seldom designed with safety as a starting point and though efforts are madeto accommodate the wide range of behaviours displayed by road users, errors and unpredictable or
impaired actions often lead to crashes. The kinetic forces involved resulting from the differences in mass
and velocity of crash opponents largely dictates the severity of outcomes. Crash outcomes with cars areespecially severe for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists who by far lack the samelevel of protection mandated for, and offered to, car and other vehicle occupants.
The distribution of crash outcomes by severity varies across countries given the heterogeneity ofcycling environments. For example, the share of killed and serious injuries (greater than MAIS 2 – ormoderate injuries) is greater for cars than for cyclists in the Netherlands (Figure 1.2), principally becauseof a smaller share of deaths resulting from cycling-related crashes. In the UK, the opposite is true withthose killed or seriously injured representing 16% of crash outcomes for cyclists versus 8% for car
occupants9.
The very young and the very old are disproportionately represented in serious crash-related injuries
across a number of countries (see Chapter 4). Korea and Japan, two countries with a significant share ofolder people, are especially confronted with bicycle crash fatalities and injuries among the old – e.g. in
Korea 65% of bicycle fatalities were aged over 60 (2009) and in Japan, 70% of bicycle fatalities wereaged over 60 (average 2005-2010) – these figures are likely exacerbated by relatively low rates of car use
and high rates of cycling (and walking) among these populations. For comparison, in the Netherlands,
55% of police-recorded bicycle fatalities were aged 60 and older (average 2005-2009) and in the United
Kingdom, this figure was as low as 21% of all police-registered bicycle fatalities (2005-2010).
Figure 1.2 Traffic injuries by severity in the Netherlands, Average 2007-2009
Moderate

Serious

SevereCritical

Death (30 days)

Car occupants
65%

16%

6%

11%
1%

Cyclists

69%

22%

6%
1% 2%

Source: SWOV, 2012CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 47

Crashes between cyclists and other cyclists or pedestrians also are a source of injuries. Official
German accident statistics indicate that in 2010 3 300 injury accidents occurred involving a cyclist and apedestrian, and about 4 400 injury accidents occurred involving two bicycles. These types of crashes,
because of their lessened severity, are often under-recorded . Nevertheless, such crashes appear to be areal issue in certain countries. In Japan, for instance, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
decided in 2007 to reconsider their approach to cycling facilities in urban cores (where a large share ofcycling occurs on sidewalks). Indeed, since 2000 a strong increase in crashes between cyclists andpedestrians had been noted leading transport authorities to start to develop separated one-way cycling
tracks as a rule in urban cores.
Few studies have looked specifically at the crash-related injury burden among modes using metrics
relating to overall lifetime health. Evidence from one study (in high cycling environments in Belgium)using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)10 finds that DALYs per 1 billion kilometres of travel was
lowest for cars (113), followed by pedestrians (1359), cyclists (1724) and motorcyclists (6365).
However, the relative contributions to lifetime health of years lost due to disability (YLD) versus lost life
years (e.g. deaths or YLL) were found to be diametrically opposed for cyclists and car occupants. The
majority of the health burden for cyclists was found to stem from disability (75% of DALYs) whereas
lost life years represented 67% of the crash-related health burden for car occupants (Dhondt, et al. 2012).
Injuries to cyclists that do not require hospitalisation often do not appear in national or regionalsafety statistics and yet represent the majority of all cyclist injuries. Minor crashes, exact a highcumulative cost, when considering health care expenditures, absenteeism and lost productivity (B. deGeus, et al. 2012) (Aertsens, et al. 2010).
Few studies have looked specifically at the incidence rate of minor versus major crash outcomes for
cyclists but evidence indicates that un-recorded minor injuries represent the overwhelming majority ofcycle crash outcomes. One cohort study of bicycle commuters in Portland, Oregon found that 80% of all
injury-causing crashes were classified as “minor”, e.g. requiring no medical attention. That study foundthe incident rate for minor versus serious (e.g. requiring medical attention) injuries was found to be 0.093
and 0.024, respectively, per 1000 kilometres (Hoffman, et al. 2010). Another cohort-based study from theNetherlands found an even greater share of “minor” crash outcomes – 97% of the total11 – though thisresult cannot be compared to the Portland case given that a “minor” incident was defined as one
requiring less than 24 hours hospitalisation. Corresponding incident rates for minor versus serious
injuries per 1000 kilometres was found to be 0.046 and 0.001, respectively (B. de Geus, et al. 2012).
(Aertsens, et al. 2010) find the cost of these accidents to be significant in Belgium – 0.125 euro perkilometre with productivity losses dominating.
Single bicycle crashes (e.g. crashes with no crash opponent) are also a significant source of injuries
though they tend to go unreported in national statistics due to their lessened severity. Single bicycle crashoutcomes involving falls and collisions with obstacles can result in especially serious injuries for elderly
cyclists. Studies compiling hospital and police records reveal that, at least in countries with a high shareof cyclists, single-bicycle crashes represent a majority of cyclist crashes and a significant share of overall
traffic crash victims. e.g. three quarters of all cyclist crash victims in the Netherlands (P. Schepers 2012)(Schepers and Klein Wolt 2012), 87% of cycle crash victim in Flanders and Brussels (Dhondt, et al.
2012) based on hospital data and 73% of crash injuries in a prospective cohort study in Belgium(B. deGeus, et al. 2012).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

48 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Do countries with lower cycling shares display the same level of single bicycle crashes? Evidence
looking beyond police-reported statistics is sparse on this point though one prospective cohort study inNorth America reports that 62% of injury-causing cycling crashes involved neither a motor vehicle oranother cyclist (Hoffman, et al. 2010).
Health risks of cycling: Crash-related injuries caused by cyclists
While cyclists tend to fare badly in motor-vehicle crashes, cyclists themselves can injure other nonmotorised crash opponents. The bulk of these crashes may have minor outcomes and go unreported but
there is evidence that for certain crash opponents, especially elderly pedestrians and cyclists, outcomesare more serious (Chong, et al. 2009).
Health risks of cycling: Air pollution
Cyclists’ are exposed to a wide spectrum of potentially health-damaging pollutants while riding.
Foremost among these are constituents and products of motor vehicle exhaust -- especially particulatematter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), ultrafine particulate matter (UFP) of less than 1 micronin diameter, NO2 and O3. Exposure to these pollutants are associated with heart disease, respiratory
ailments and disease, lung cancer and mortality (Marshall, Brauer and Frank 2009) (Knibbs, Cole-Hunterand Morowska 2011). The dose-response relationship has been found to be linear (e.g. there are no
threshold effects) with adverse health outcomes reported for long both long-term and short-term
exposure (Marshall, Brauer and Frank 2009) (Weichenthal, et al. 2011) (Int Panis, Meeusen, et al. 2011).
However, many studies have found that adverse impacts of air pollution in relation to mortality fall
disproportionately on already-weakened populations such as the elderly or those with pre-existing
cardiovascular conditions (Int Panis and de Hartog 2011). If the cycling population is largely drawn fromyounger and healthier subjects, then mortality-related impacts due to exposure to air pollution are likely
to be smaller than those suggested by many studies. This would suggest that the health disbenefits fromexposure to air pollution for cyclists may be overestimated in current analyses.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 49

Box 1.2 Electric Bicycles, Safety and HealthElectrically-assisted bicycles and light scooters are not specifically addressed in this report, largely because national
crash and injury data do not typically keep separate statistics for these vehicle classes. Nonetheless sales of electricallyassisted bicycles are growing rapidly in many countries. More than 32 million electric bicycles were sold in 2011, 31 millionof them in China (and most of these were not strictly “pedelecs” as described below). In Europe and Switzerland over 750
000 electric bicycles were sold in 2011 with market shares of total bicycle sales reaching 15% in the Netherlands, 9% inAustria and 8% in Germany. Upwards of 350 000 electric bicycles were also sold in Japan in 2011 surpassing moped sales.
The rate of uptake of electric bicycles and their continued penetration within national fleets warrants some discussion of theirsafety and health aspects.
The electric bicycle market can be broken into two broad categories. “Pedelecs” represent the first category and arecharacterised by low-power motors that operate only with pedal input up to speeds of ~25 km/hr at which motor assistancecuts out. They cannot be powered by the motor alone and in most jurisdictions are treated as traditional pedal-powered
bicycles. The second category consists of pedal vehicles with more powerful electric motors, higher top-end speeds and, inmany instances, the ability to operate solely on electric power (e.g. with no pedal input from the rider). The regulatory
framework for these vehicles is disparate among countries and, in some cases, within countries. Some jusrisdictions (e.g. theEU) classify these types of electric “bicycles” as light motorcycles or mopeds triggering more stringent licensing, operating
age and helmet use rules. Certain other jurisdictions are in the process of revising the regulatory framework governing thesevehicles (as in the case of China). Below, we discuss safety and considerations in relation to pedelecs only.
Research on pedelec use is limited but the following characteristics can be summarised from the litterature; average
per-trip travel distances tend to be longer than for traditional bicycles, average travel speeds tend to be higher and pedelecs
tend to be used predominantly by those 50 and older and by commuters (Roetynck 2010) (Hendriksen, et al. 2008) (Lenten
and Stockmann 2010). What do these findings imply as far as safety is concerned?
Increased speeds will translate into higher crash-related kinetic forces. This suggests that pedelec use may lead to more
severe injuries than crashes involving a traditional bicycle. Available evidence supports this hypothesis (Lenten andStockmann 2010) (GDV 2011) (Feng, et al. 2010). Higher speeds may also increase the severity of single-bicycle crashes andcrashes involving bicycle and pedestrian opponents. The finding that older cyclists tend to be disproportionately represented
among pedelec users also implies that crash outcomes will be more severe given the vulnerability of these cyclists in relation
to the general cycling population. Crashes may also be more frequent for this class of user due to the combination of lower
psycho-motor function and elevated travel speeds. The impact of speed on the frequency and severity of pedelec crashes
could also be exacerbated should pedelecs attract new (and older) cyclists with little riding experience. Pedelec and electric
bicle kilometres travelled are likely less safe than bicycle kilometres travelled, all things equal, and this should be accountedfor in policy.
What can be said about the health benefits of pedelecs? Again, this is an area where little research has been undertaken
but there is evidence to support the following statements. Pedelecs require some physical effort and therefore can contributeto beneficial levels of physical activity. How much depends on the speed at which pedelecs are operated. At typical operating
speeds (22+km/hr for pedelecs, 15km/hr for traditional bicycles) metabolic effort is roughly similar (Lenten and Stockmann
2010). If pedelecs are operated at traditional bicycle speeds (~15km/hr), then the metabolic effort for pedelecs is lower than a
traditional bicycle and so too are the health benefits from physical activity. However, air pollutant intake is also lower atlower rates of metabolic effort.
It would seem that increasing pedelec numbers is not neutral from a safety perspective and will require targeted action(possible strategies could include adapting bicycle infrastructure design, rider awareness campaigns , protective equipment)
as well as more research. One may broadly conclude that pedelec riders face increased crash risk and increased risk of severe
injuries as compared to traditional cyclists. Nonetheless, if pedelec riders were previously sedentary, the adverse healthoutcomes from crashes may be more than compensated-for by the health benefit of increased activity. A fundamental
question remains as to the safety and health balance of pedelec use by older riders which should be a targeted research area in
the future.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

50 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHESAre cyclists disproportionately at risk compared to other populations? Three variables come intoplay when evaluating this relative risk which is necessary to evaluate the health impact of shifting traffic
to cycling. These variables are:

ambient pollutant concentrations measured on or near the road,

exposure to pollutants for on-road and near-road populations andthe ultimate dose experienced by cyclists and other road users.

Most studies evaluating the health impact of traffic pollution are based on measurements of ambient
pollutant levels in the roadside environment. One major reason for this is the relative ease and low costof collecting this data. As a result, health risks to cyclists from exposure to PM 2.5 and UFP have often
been downplayed in light of consistent findings that differences in average concentrations faced bycyclists and car drivers in traffic are rarely significant (and even slightly higher for car occupants, see
Figure 1.3). Average concentrations do not serve, however, as a perfect proxy for gauging exposure or
deposition.

Air pollution concentration,
car to bicycle ratio

Figure 1.3 Summary of car vs. cyclist pollutant concentration ratios, 13 studies, 21 findings
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5

UFP

PM2.5

PM10

Black Carbon

CO

Source: Compiled from (Brauer and Cole 2012)

Studies have confirmed a distance-based concentration gradient for several pollutant species thathave significant adverse health impacts. The slope of this gradient is highly dependent on local
conditions, fleet composition and meteorology but a recent review controlling for many of these factors
has found that concentration-distance gradients for several toxic pollutants are relatively steep withhighly dangerous ultrafine particulate matter and carbon monoxide degrading especially rapidly (Karner,
Eisinger and Niemeir 2010)(Figure 1.4). This would suggest that dangerous pollutant concentrations
faced by cyclists on near-road but separate facilities may be less on average than those faced by cyclists
and motorists in the traffic stream.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 51

Figure 1.4 Pollutant concentration gradient from roadside –Local regression of background normalised concentrations on distance

Regression sample for each pollutant in parentheses
Source: (Karner, Eisinger and Niemeir 2010).

This intuitive finding is supported by micro-scale studies looking at pollutant concentrations
measured within very close distances to the roadway. For instance, (Kendrick, et al. 2011) found that
displacing cyclists 1 to 2 metres away from motor traffic (in the context of a cycle lane to cycle track
conversion) led to an 8-38% reduction in UFP concentrations depending on the day and location
monitored. The particular configuration of the cycle track (separated from traffic by a row of parked cars
and a small buffer zone) is likely to have played a role in the lower concentrations measured for cyclists
in addition to the horizontal separation from motorised traffic.
Likewise, a monitoring study of a major roadway in Prague highlighted the distance-decay effect forroad traffic pollutants (Bendl 2011). A cycling path running parallel, but not always adjacent, to theroadway registered levels of PM10 running from less than 10µg/m³ to higher than 40µg/m³ (Figure 1.5).
These findings suggest that locating bicycle facilities even slightly further away from traffic may reduce
pollutant concentrations faced by cyclists – especially if physical barriers help block pollutant dispersion(e.g. parked cars or planted barriers).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

52 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Figure 1.5 Map of PM10 concentrations alongside a main road with 110 000 vehicles/day, Prague

Bicycle route

Source: (Bendl 2011)

Exposure to air pollutants is the product of ambient concentrations and duration. Holding
concentration and distance equal, and assuming typical average speeds, cyclists experience greater
exposure than car occupants since they require longer in order to travel the same distance. If traffic iscongested however, cyclists may be as fast or faster than motor vehicles and thus cyclists’ exposure,holding concentrations equal, may be lower. In reality, cyclists typically will, if possible, select lower
trafficked routes that de facto reduce exposure due to lower pollutant concentrations despite sometimes
longer travel times. In some cases, the exposition to harmful air pollutants is quite significantly reducedon low versus high traffic routes (Zuurbier, et al. 2010), (Cole-Hunter, et al. 2012).
The ultimate health impact of air pollutants on cyclists is closely related to intake and thus, ultimate
deposition of pollutants in the lungs, especially in the alveoli where pollutants enter the bloodstream.
Intake is a product of both exposure and, critically for cyclist, ventilatory effort since cyclists breathe
more often and more deeply than occupants of motorised vehicles. Studies looking at ventilation-adjusted
pollutant intake among cyclists and other road users find much higher doses for cyclists. Controlling forreal measured ventilatory effort, one study found that cyclists inhaled 5.9 to 8 times more PM2.5 (μg) thancar drivers on the same route in the same traffic and meteorological conditions (Int Panis, Meeusen, et al.
2011). Another study found smaller but still significant differences with cyclists inhaling 1.9 times asmuch PM2.5 (μg) as car drivers on the same route (Zuurbier, et al. 2010). Part of the difference between
the two findings can be explained by the travel speed (and therefore ventilatory frequency and effort) of
the cyclists – e.g. 12 km/hr in the former study versus 15/hr (for women) to 19km/hr (for men) in thelatter. In Dublin, (McNabola, Broderick and Gill 2008) similarly find that cyclists register 1.4 times moreintake of PM2.5 than car occupants (and 1.3 times more than pedestrians but only slightly more than bus
occupants) though their intake of volatile organic compounds is slightly less than car occupants (butmore than pedestrians and bus occupants).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 53

The three above-mentioned studies were undertaken in northern European settings (Netherlands,
Belgium and Ireland) – do their findings hold for other geographical contexts? Cross-mode comparisonsof pollutant exposure and intake including cyclists are not common, but two recent studies examine
evidence from Spain and China. (de Nazelle, Fruin, et al. 2012) find in a pairwise analysis of travel along
two commuter routes by various transport modes in central Barcelona that cyclists were exposed to 0.6
times fewer ultrafine particles as cars and about the same concentration of PM 2.5 (Table 1.5). Accounting
for ventilatory effort (2.1 times as high for cyclists as for car occupants) but faster trip times for bicycles,
they found that cyclists inhaled 1.7 times as much PM2.5 as cars but about the same amount of ultrafine
particles. They also find lower inhaled doses of black carbon and carbon monoxide for cyclists ascompared to car drivers. Compared to bus occupants, cyclists registered larger inhaled doses for all
pollutants considered while cyclists registered lower inhaled doses of all pollutants when compared topedestrians.
Table 1.5 Inhalation, travel time, air pollutant concentration and calculated inhaled dose:
Pairwise analysis of two commuter routes in Barcelona
Ultrafine particles

unit
Walk
Bike
Bus
Car
Back groundbike to car ratio
bike to bus ratio
bike to walk ratio
bike to background

Inhalation
Rate(L min -1 )
34.1
41
20
19.9
2.1
2.1
1.2
..

Trip time
(min)

PM2.5

Black Carbon

CO

Concentration
Inhaled dose per
Concentration
Inhaled dose per
Concentration
Inhaled dose per
Concentration
Inhaled dose per(arithmetic mean)
trip(arithmetic mean)
trip(arithmetic mean)
trip(arithmetic mean)trip(# cm -3 )(# x 10 9 )(μg m -3 )(μg)
(μg m -3 )
(μg)
(ppm)
(μg)
49
52700
89.8
21.6
35.1
6.31
10.7
1.31
7
25
77500
75.6
35
32.8
9.53
8.7
1.64
3.2
34
55200
39.8
25.9
18
7.58
5.3
2.14
3
28
123000
75.6
35.5
19.7
19.5
10.4
7.33
8.9
19200
15.6
1.74
0.3
0.9
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.7
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.7
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.8
1.3
1.6
0.8
1.1
0.5
1.5
0.8
1.6
0.9
1.5
0.8
1.3
0.5
..
4.0
..
2.2
..
5.5
..
5.5
..

172 trips, route length 4.7 and 3.1 km, 60% peak hour traffic, 40% off peak
Source: (de Nazelle, Fruin, et al. 2012)

Another recent study has looked at pollutant intake across various modes in Shanghai. It found thatcyclists register a disproportionate pollutant intake compared to other travellers – peak hour inhalation
doses of PM1 for cyclists ranged from 2 times as great as for bus occupants and 4.25 times as great as for
car occupants (using taxis as a proxy). Another finding was that absolute concentrations of particulatematter were substantially more elevated than those found in other studies in North American or European
contexts (Yu, et al. 2012).
Overall, evidence on the concentration-exposure-deposition relationship suggests that cyclists’health could be improved by locating bicycle facilities away from road traffic where indicated –especially for sections where emissions are highest (motor vehicle acceleration on hills, longstraightaways and in congested traffic) or where cyclist effort is greatest (e.g. hills). It also underscores
the more elevated air pollution-related health risk faced by cyclists in highly polluted locales. Finally,
when estimating air quality-related health benefits/disbenefits from a switch towards cycling, care should
be taken to control for air pollution intake by mode as these can be quite different.
The balance of health and safety risks for cycling
Based on the wide range of research evidence highlighted in the previous sections, what can be said
about the overall balance of health and safety risks for cycling? In particular, do the health benefits
identified compensate for the injury risks linked to crashes and exposure to air pollution and noise? Thisis a particularly important question for cost-benefit analysis of cycling projects (see Box 3).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

54 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Several researchers have sought to answer these questions recently – (Praznoczy 2012),(Rabl and deNazelle 2012), (de Nazelle, Niewenhuijsen, et al. 2011), (Teschke, et al. 2012), (Int Panis, Meeusen, etal. 2011), (Rojas-Rueda, et al. 2011),(de Hartog, et al. 2010), (van Kempen, et al., 2010). Controlling for
exposure (and sometimes for crash under-reporting), these studies find that the health benefits of cycling
are on average substantially larger than the disbenefits resulting from cycling crashes and exposure to air
pollution.
In a comprehensive health and safety evaluation of cycling in the greater Paris region, (Praznoczy2012) finds that the health impact of bicycle crashes impacts (in terms of fatalities) are particularly overestimated by most actors whereas the health impact of air pollution is significantly underestimated.
Crucially, however, the health benefits of regular exercise via cycling is several orders of magnitude
higher than the health disbenefits outlined above and is fundamentally underestimated by authorities.
Figure 1.6 Estimated mortality impacts due to an increase in cycle mode sharein the Greater Paris region (annual deaths avoided/induced in 2020)
Growth in cycling mode share f rom 2% to 4% of all trips
Avoided deaths due to cycling physical activity
Avoided victims of car crashes (5% car-to-bike mode shif t)

308
0.4

Pedestrian victims of bicycle crashes-1

Cyclist victims of motor vehicle crashes-5

Cyclist exposure to air pollution-8
Growth in cycling mode share f rom 2% to 8% of all trips

Avoided deaths due to cycling physical activity
Avoided victims of car crashes (5% car-to-bike mode shif t)

937
1.3

Pedestrian victims of bicycle crashes-3

Cyclist victims of motor vehicle crashes-7

Cyclist exposure to air pollution-25

Source: (Praznoczy, 2012)

Figure 1.6 summarises the findings of (Praznoczy 2012). Using conservative estimates12 the study
finds a benefit-to-risk ratio of 19 for an increase of cycling mode share in the Paris region from current
levels to 4%, in line with recent growth rates. Should pro-cycling and other policies increase cycling
mode share to levels found in many other French and European cities (8%), that ratio increases to 24.
Under a more extreme scenario, but one in line with bicycle mode shares observed in some other(smaller) cities, that ratio could reach 27. As with other studies, it is the beneficial health impact fromphysical activity that by far outpaces other positive impacts and outstrips negative impacts. Unlike someother studies, and perhaps due to the high levels of suspended particulate matter in Paris, the author findsthat the health impacts from cyclists’ exposure to air pollution are greater than the crash risk cyclists
face, at least in terms of fatalities.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 55

Figure 1.7 Estimated mortality (and morbidity) costs and benefits per individual switching from car
to bicycle for work trips* in large European cities
Mortality-related costs

Confidence interval for mortality-related costs

Morbidity-related costs (~50% more, except for crash injuries)

Health gain from physical activity
1310€/yrSocietal gain from reduced pollution

33€/yr

Health reduction, individual pollution-19€/yr

Health reduction, crash injury -286€/yr
-400

-200

-53€/yr
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

* 2x5km daily roundtrip, 5 days per week, 46 weeks per year
Error bars represent upper and lower (95% confidence intervals.

Source: Rabl and de Nazelle, 2012

Another study looking only at the monetised impact of switching from car to bicycle travel in large
European cities (Rabl and de Nazelle 2012) finds that the positive health gains for an individual resulting
from a switch from car to bicycle commuting add up to €1343 per year on average (Figure 1.7). It finds
the negative health impacts, including those linked to crash-related mortality, result in a loss of €72/year– or 19 times less than the benefits. The study’s principal finding that the health benefits from cycling
surpass by several orders of magnitude other adverse health impacts linked to crashes and air pollution isrobust to a range of assumptions regarding specific variables and monetary values. One reason is thatphysical activity has a beneficial impact on a much wider range of endpoints than air pollution andcrashes. They note that considering morbidity in addition to mortality would likely increase individual
and societal air pollution-related impacts by approximately 50% and increase the health gain fromcycling by more than 50%. At the same time however, the burden from non-fatal bicycle accidents would
also rise to €286/yr – or 5.5 times more than in the scenario outlined in Figure 1 using per kilometre costs
from (Aertsens, et al. 2010).
While the studies cited above find that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the disbenefits ofincreased crash risk – the crucial question remains “which health benefits for whom?”
Many of the studies cited above investigate primarily the individual health gains experienced bycyclists making the switch from car use. As noted previously, however, there is strong evidence that procycling policies, at least initially, attract people that previously walked or used public transport rather
than car users. There may be a point where the number of car users attracted to cycling significantly
increases (evidence from countries with long-standing pro-cycling policies supports this) but it is unclear
if, when and how many car users will make the switch as this is influenced not only by local policies but
by local conditions as well. Suffice to say that at least the initial health impacts of pro-cycling policies
will be largely based on of the uptake of cycling by pedestrians and public transport users rather than car
occupants alone.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

56 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Box 1.3 Accounting for cycling safety and health in cost-benefit analysis
The use of cost-benefit accounting (CBA) in transport helps to guide investment decisions such that they maximize
societal outcomes. Investments in cycling and the development of pro-cycling policies should ideally be subject to costbenefit exercises, especially in a context of constrained budgets and a desire for maximum value. (Cavill, et al. 2008) review
16 CBA exercises that include or focus on cycling. Controlling for study methodology and quality, they find a range oflargely positive benefit-to-cost ratios (BCR) in favour of cycling projects in 16 studies ranging from a BCR of 1.5:1 to a BCR
of 32.5:1 with one slightly negative BCR. The median BCR for the studies examined was 5:1 which, for illustration, is muchhigher than the threshold 2:1 BCR required for infrastructure planning in the UK. Health benefits make up a significant
contribution to the elevated cycling BCRs for cycling and walking projects in the studies examined. The authors note that themultiplicity of methods and variables considered as well as sometimes obscure assumptions included in the CBAs examined
no not lend themselves to elucidating a clear view on the scale of cycling benefits. They also note the difficulty in observing
levels of total physical activity for the populations considered (which would help to better gauge the health improvement
impact for cycling) – though one study did control for leisure time activity (Rutter 2006). At a minimum, it would seem that
more transparency is required regarding methodologies and assumptions in cycling-related CBA.
Given the preponderance of health benefits in cycling BCRs, it makes sense to ask the question whether or not these
are additional benefits (e.g. external benefits not included in individuals’ decision-making) or if cyclists already account for
improved health in their decision to ride a bicycle (Börjesson and Eliasson 2011).
(Börjesson and Eliasson 2011) note that 4 factors must be considered when deciding whether or not health benefits
from cycling should be include in CBAs for pro-cycling policies and infrastructure investment:

whether or not cyclists derive health benefits from cycling,

whether or not pro-cycling policies and infrastructure increase levels of cycling, preferably by sedentary
people,

substitution effects between cycling and other forms of physical activity, andthe extent to which cyclists already account for health benefits from cycling.

This chapter already examines the first two points – individual health benefits are important and pro-cycling policies
seem to, at least initially, principally attract non-car users (with geographic disparities). On the latter points, (Börjesson andEliasson 2011) note that for most of the Stockholm cyclists examined in their study, cycling already represents their primary
form of exercise and cite evidence that additional cycling would lead to a drop in other forms of physical activity. Thissuggests that time constraints may lead new cyclists (coming from other modes) to reduce other forms of exercise thus
keeping constant levels physical activity. This would mean that cycling may not necessarily increase levels of physicalactivity (and thus health benefits) as much as many have assumed as suggested by some research (Yang, et al. 2012).
However, it may increase the amount of regular moderate exercise that people get (as opposed to more concentrated but lessfrequent bouts of exercise) – this would have a health-improving effect (Praznoczy 2012).
Another matter is whether cyclists are aware of, and already account for, the positive health outcomes of cycling. Ifthey do, then including health benefits as additional benefits in CBA would constitute double-counting. This has important
implications since greatly minimising the health benefits from cycling in CBA, holding all else equal, would greatly reduce
positive BCRs for cycling (Börjesson and Eliasson 2011)13. It seems unlikely that cyclists are fully aware of the healthbenefits of cycling and are able to accurately gauge these. However, it seems equally unlikely that cyclists completely
disregard improved health as a reason for cycling. This suggests that defining all health benefits of cycling as additional
benefits would seem unjustified. Nonetheless, the current state of knowledge does not allow for an accurate determination ofwhat is and what isn’t an additional health benefit from cycling for the purpose of CBA – indicating a need for additional
research or, at a minimum, a need to expressly account for this lack of knowledge in CBA.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 57

Another factor to consider is the extent to which health benefits attributed to increased physicalactivity via cycling remain as high when accounting for non-cycling physical activity. An increase incycling does not necessarily imply an increase in overall physical activity or vice-versa. The studies cited
above typically assume low activity levels for car occupants and health-improving increases in activity
linked to cycling. This is a contestable assumption – car users may be physically active in other ways
(e.g. sports activities) and pedestrians and public transport users may be nearly as active as cyclists. Car
users switching to cycling may increase their activity levels or simply replace sports or other physicalactivities with cycling (Börjesson and Eliasson 2011) (Yang, et al. 2012). Likewise pedestrians andpublic transport users may simply replace one form of physical activity (walking) with another (cycling).
Another factor to consider is how different countries or cycling populations may or may not be able tosubstitute cycling for different forms of exercise or vice-versa. It may be that populations whose cycling
practice is mainly recreational may be able and willing to substitute cycling for other exercise whereas
this may not be the case for populations whose cycling is (or would be) mainly transport-oriented andutilitarian (de Jong 2012). Any change in cycling levels would have a stronger impact on the latter
population compared to the former. Overall, however, the fundamental question of how much cycling
increases overall activity levels is a difficult one that remains largely absent from research.
Summarising the current state of research, we can say that on balance and even accounting for
injury risk, cycling seems significantly health-improving when compared to car use by those with low
physical activity levels. Policies that successfully lead to a switch towards cycling for this population
may increase crash numbers (though not necessarily crash rates) but the adverse effects linked to thisincrease will likely be more than compensated for by a decrease in mortality and morbidity due toincreased physical activity14. Increasing crash numbers would be nonetheless a negative policy outcomethat must be addressed by specific measures. Conversely, policies that increase cycling but do notincrease overall physical activity levels bring only risks (Int Panis and de Hartog 2011) though reducing
these risks may lead to disproportionate benefits (e.g. by stimulating more cycling).
1.3.

“Safety in Numbers”: Do more cyclists improve safety… and if so, how?

Researchers and observers have noted a correlation between an increase in the number of cyclists(or pedestrians) and a relative reduction of the incidence rate of severe/fatal crashes involving cyclists (orpedestrians). This “safety in numbers” effect (Jacobsen 2003) has been cited widely and would suggestthat the relative risk ratios for cycling and other modes of transport illustrated in Table 1 are not fixed butchange in relation to the modal composition of overall travel activity. The observed “safety in numbers”
effect holds not only for multi-participant crashes but for single-bicycle crashes as well (P. Schepers2012). At the centre of the phenomenon is the observation of non-linearity of risk: an increase of
exposure (numbers, volumes, etc.) results in a less-than-proportional increase of the number of crashes(Elvik, 2009). Alternatively, the fewer cyclists there are in traffic (all else held equal) the greater the riskof crash and injury they face. In its most simplified expression, the observation of “safety in numbers”
has led some to suggest that policies that increase the numbers of cyclists de facto increase safety since,
per unit of exposure, the number of crashes decrease. This interpretation has limited use for policy since
an absolute increase in crashes, irrespective of crash rate, is hardly a beneficial policy outcome andbecause the relationship between numbers of cyclists and crash rates is not necessarily straightforward
nor uni-directional.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

58 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Care must be taken to not conflate observed correlation with causality when discussing “safety innumbers” as there are numerous plausible explanations for the observed phenomenon. On this note, there
is strikingly little empirical research examining the causal factors that could explain the relationshipbetween increased cyclist and pedestrian numbers and decreased crash rates. Hypotheses have been put
forward that focus either on the behaviour of motor vehicle operators or, alternatively, on the behaviourof cyclists themselves.
“Expectancy” is one way of explaining “safety in numbers” from the perspective of car drivers. That
is to say: if a road user (e.g. a car driver) expects the presence of another road user, or can predict the
behaviour of other road users, one may expect lower risks (Houtenbos 2008);(Räsänen and Summala1998). In this respect, it may be more exact to re-cast “safety in numbers” as “awareness in numbers” (F.
Wegman in (Mapes 2009)). Another possible explanation is that cyclists are simply more visible to car
drivers when they are more numerous (Bhatia and Wier 2012).
Researchers have suggested alternative explanations for the “safety in numbers” phenomenon basedon hypothetic “crowd-sourcing” behaviour of cyclists themselves. According to this view, the morecyclists there are, the greater the number of individuals scanning the road environment for potential
sources of danger and communicating what they detect to other cyclists either directly (verbally, handsignals) or indirectly (by taking observable avoiding action). Individual cyclists can benefit from thescanning behaviour of other cyclists such that larger groups of cyclists enjoy high levels of collective
vigilance. In a similar fashion, cyclists may be collectively selecting routes (and possible riding
behaviours) that are safer based on the leadership of more experienced cyclists (Bhatia and Wier 2012).
If “expectancy”, “awareness in numbers”, or “crowd-sourced” safety are valid explanations for theobserved “safety in numbers” effect then one might reasonably assume that simply increasing the numberof cyclists may indeed result in lower crash rates. At relatively high levels of cycling, it may even be
possible that the absolute number of crashes could decrease as indicated by (Elvik, 2009).
However, the risk of confounding causal factors is great, especially when one considers the largely
untested temporal direction of the observed “safety in numbers” effect. The explanation could simply bethat cycle-safe traffic systems attract large numbers of cyclists – e.g. more people cycle when it is safe to
do so. Large numbers of cyclists in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are associated with highdensities of safe bicycle facilities which may explain why so many choose to cycle there and also whycrash rates are relatively low. Without prospective or longitudinal studies looking at ex-ante and ex-post
effects of new infrastructure, it will be difficult to determine if the effect observed is “safety in numbers”
or “numbers through safety” (Bhatia and Wier 2012). If the latter explanation is correct, simply adding
more cyclists to an unsafe traffic system may increase both absolute numbers of crashes alongside crash
rates – clearly an unwelcome outcome.
From the lack of strong evidence on the behavioural or infrastructure-related determinants of “safetyin numbers”, it would seem that great care should be taken in using the observed phenomenon as a basis
for bicycle safety policy. At a minimum, policies seeking to increase the number of cyclists should beaccompanied by robust risk-reducing actions.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 59

1.4.

Challenges to assessing cycling safety: Cyclist crash under-reporting andlack of exposure data

In the course of this review of cycling safety, it has become clear that most national authorities andmany regional/municipal authorities simply lack an adequate basis on which to assess both cyclists’safety and the impact of “safety-improving” policies. Why is this? At the core of safety assessment is thecalculation of crash incidence rates (typically split into fatal crashes and others of varying degrees ofseverity). Schematically; safety (expressed as the crash incidence rate) is the quotient of the number ofcrashes divided by a measure of exposure or bicycle usage.
Number of crashes, fatalities or injuries)
Safety (incidence rate) =Measure of exposure (trips, km, hrs)

Box 1.4 "Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties" Key Recommendations
The International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD) housed by the International Transport Forum at theOECD collects international crash and exposure data on a continuous basis. The International Traffic Safety Data andAnalysis Group (known as the IRTAD Group) charged with piloting, expanding and improving IRTAD has underscored the
problem of under-reporting on crash injuries and outcomes and in 2011 released the report “Reporting on Serious Road
Traffic Casualties: Combining different data sources to improve understanding of non-fatal road traffic crashes” (IRTAD2012). The report’s main conclusions are especially relevant for reporting of cycling crashes given the high incidence ofunder-reporting of non-fatal injuries for cyclists. Below are those most relevant for improving the reporting of cyclists’injuries:1.

A complete picture of casualty totals (killed and seriously injured) is needed to fully assess the consequencesof road crashes and monitor programmes

2.

Injury information should complement information on fatal crashes to give a fuller picture of road crashes(especially in light of the high number of less severe injuries experienced by cyclists). Information on
injuries should become more important for international comparisons.

3.

Police data should remain the main source for road crash statistics. However, because of under-reporting
problems and possible bias (for example with different rates of reporting for cyclists as compared to
motorists), police data should be complemented by hospital data which are the next most useful source.

4.

The data from hospital emergency departments, available in some countries, should be monitored regularly
and researched to determine if they might shed more light on road casualties. This is especially important for
cyclist traffic injuries since these are rarely linked to crash data.

5.

The assessment of the severity of injuries should preferably be done by medical professionals, and not by thepolice at the scene of the crash.

Source: (IRTAD, 2012)

In many cases both numerator and denominator are inadequately measured or may be missing
altogether. In practice, this means that many authorities do not have an accurate grasp of the rates of
injury-causing cycling (and pedestrian) crashes. This is especially true for non-fatal crashes.
Furthermore, in many cases authorities cannot clearly determine if observed trends in crashes result froma change in the safety of cycling or in the number of cyclists or the volume of bicycle travel. With many
authorities seeking to increase rates of cycling and walking, it seems crucial that the factual basis onwhich policy assessment depends be improved.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

60 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Under-reporting of cyclist crashes
Overcoming under-reporting of bicycle crashes is an essential challenge for cyclist safety analysis.
The underlying reason for under- reporting is that personal injury accidents are not systematicallyregistered in many jurisdictions. In the context of the present report, it should be kept in mind that mostof our analysis is based solely on data of recorded bicycle accidents – oftentimes from police records.
Under-reporting is not limited to bicycle accidents or certain countries and, in a certain way, is inevitable
and concerns all types of vehicles and all countries (IRTAD 2012). There is evidence, though, thatamong all road crash participants, cyclists are the least recorded (Broughton, et al. 2008), (De Mol andLammar 2006).
Under-reporting is less prevalent when considering fatal crashes involving cyclists though there are
discrepancies in criteria for attributing post-crash deaths to specific traffic incidents. Lack of
coordination between police and hospital record-keeping also contribute to inexact crash-related fatality
data. Under-reporting of non-fatal cycle crash related injuries is much more prevalent and further
hampers road safety assessments (IRTAD 2012).
In principle, the police should always be informed of traffic-related personal injury accidents.
However, in practice, not all road users conform to that obligation. There are numerous reasons for this.
When there are no seriously injured persons or immediate physical complications (whiplash injury, light
concussion, etc.), parties involved generally do not inform the police or, when informed, the police does
not always go on the spot. The less serious the accident, the more probable the police does not intervene.
When only vulnerable road users such as cyclists are involved, it is less probable that the police intervene
than when cars are involved (Elvik and Vaa, 2004), (Vadenbulcke et al, 2009). Another reason for underrecording is the number of persons involved in bicycle accidents: the fewer people involved, the smaller
the chance of official recording (Elvik and Vaa, 2004), (Vadenbulcke et al, 2009).
How severe is under-reporting of cycling crashes? Quite severe – a conservative assessment for
Europe finds that police records only capture 50% of hospital admissions for traffic-related cycling
injuries (De Mol and Lammar 2006). Another assessment for the United States finds this figure to be
only 10%. (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000). (Langley, et al. 2003) find that only 22% of cyclists seriously
injured in a crash were recorded in official crash statistics in New Zealand. In Münster, (Juhra, et al.
2011) report that police records existed for only 34% of all cyclist injuries for a one-year study in 2009.
An in-depth prospective cohort-based study for Belgium confirms strong underreporting of non-fatal
crash-related injuries finding that only 7% of non-severe bicycle crashes were recorded in police
statistics (B. de Geus, et al. 2012), (Vandenbulcke et al, 2009) – a low figure confirmed in other studies(Van Hout, 2007), (Elvik and Mysen, 1999).
Under-reporting complicates the analysis of long-term trends and hides the true picture of cycle
safety. In particular, under-reporting impacts the assessment of:

Evolution of cyclist safety: it is not known if and how under-recording has evolved over theyears. In order to be able to reliably compare road safety factors over several years, theextent of under-recording should remain stable. In any case, each change in the number ofcrashes recorded, even annually, has an influence on crash statistics. This runs the risk thatan increase or a decrease in statistics on bicycle crashes is strictly interpreted as such andnot necessarily as a consequence of a change in the number of crashes recorded.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 61

Accident severity: crashes involving slightly injured persons are less well recorded thanthose involving seriously injured. The latter are less well recorded than those involving
fatalities (i.e. death occurs within thirty days after the crash). This implies that amongst allroad crash victims, the slightly injured are proportionally the most under-recorded andhence average bicycle crash severity is over-rated.

Specific bicycle accident characteristics: as already mentioned, crash recording currently
differs according to the types of crash opponents involved. At present, certain bicycle crashcharacteristics are proportionally less well documented than others. In particular, singlebike, bike-on-bike and bicycle-pedestrian crashes are likely strongly under-estimated, partly
because of the reduced severity of crash outcomes.

Overall vision on bicycle accidents: As the proportion of bicycle crashes in the overall
number of road crashes is largely under-estimated, policy-makers face difficulty in correctly
estimating the social implications of bicycle crashes (both in quantity and quality). This, inturn, hinders their ability to take appropriate measures. In the absence of an objective pointof reference and comparison, it is also difficult to set quantified goals for reducing thenumber of cycling road accident victims.

Lack of bicycle usage and exposure data
Most countries and/or cities are ill-equipped to assess cycling safety because of a lack of accurate
and detailed information on actual bicycle usage. The lack of exposure data is a real hindrance tounderstanding the current status of cycling safety and complicates the assessment of cycling policies.
Crucially, exposure-based injury rates would allow authorities to understand if policies improve safety by
reducing exposure (e.g. by decreasing bicycle use) which, given the benefits of cycling would be a badthing or if they increase safety by decreasing crash-related injuries for a same level of usage.
Information about how many cycle crashes occur is useful for problem identification and allocationof resources. If substantial numbers of cyclists are injured, then there is a problem worthy ofinvestigation and intervention. If many injuries occur in a particular situation then it is worth allocating
resources to rectify the situation.
In contrast, understanding patterns of crashes and injuries requires that cycling exposure beconsidered. There are numerous possible exposure indicators including both direct and indirect or proxymeasures (Wundersitz and Hutchinson 2008):
Travel surveys:
Distance travelledNumber of trips

Time spent travelling

Traffic monitoring:

Traffic volumes



Traffic conflicts

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

62 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Box 1.5 Bicycle injury characteristics and reporting rates from the EU Injury Database (IDB)
In Europe, police-reported crash data is centralised in the CARE database (see Chapter 4) which tracks several data points
related to the crash participants, context, conditions, location and outcomes. In addition, the EU Injury database (IDB) collects
standardised data on injury treatment from hospitals in the following countries: Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Traffic crash data in IDB supplements CARE
police-reported statistics with more detailed hospital information on injury severity and treatment when linked via a common
identifier number. However, most IDB bicycle crash data concerns crashes that are not reported to police -- or if they are, where
no link has been made. IDB data can thus can serve as a good basis for understanding the scale and scope of injuries from bicycle
crashes as well as to assess the extent of bicycle crash under-reporting in official statistics.
According to IDB injury statistics, cyclists represent 41% of all hospital-treated traffic injury patients in reporting countries
and 30% of hospitalised traffic injury patients. Hospital length of stay for cyclists is about 7days – longer than the average lengthof stay for car occupants but shorter than the average stay for pedestrians and motorized two-wheelers. Upper body (37%), head
injuries (26%) and lower extremity injuries (26%) dominate cyclist crash-related injuries. Head injuries for cyclists representslightly more than the average for all injured traffic participants (24%). Cyclists have a slightly higher share of head injuries thancar occupants (24%), a much higher share of head injuries than motorised two wheelers (16%) and a much lower share thanpedestrians (30%). Cyclists have the highest share of upper body injuries of all road users reported in IDB. In terms of injury
types, Cyclist and pedestrian injuries In terms of injury types, vulnerable road users dominate in 5 of 18 IDB-catalogued injuries– mainly traumatic force injuries (dislocations, open wounds and fractures) -- and a account for slightly higher share of overall
non-concussion brain injuries.
IDB data on injury type for vulnerable road users versus motorized road users
Cyclists, pedestrians
Luxation, dislocation
Open wound
Fracture
Other specified brain injury
Blood vessel injury
Traumatic amputation
AbrasionContusion, bruise
Concussion
Other specified injury
Crushing injury
Distorsion/sprain
Spinal chord/nerve injury
Unspecified type of injury
Internal organ injury
Multiple injuries
Muscle/tendon injury
Burns/scalds 4%0%

Motorised road users
63%
62%
59%
56%
53%

44%
44%
43%
41%
37%
35%
33%
32%
32%
27%
26%
23%

50%

100%

Comparing IDB data with national police-reported crash statistics underscores the significance of bicycle crash underreporting. In Austria, for example, official police-reported statistics report 5495 bicycle injury crashes in 2009. In contrast, IDB
hospital statistics report 28 200 bicycle crash victim treated in hospitals which when accounting for travel survey data on privatepractitioner bicycle crash consultations should be adjusted upwards to approximately 37 000 bicycle injury crashes. Police
statistics only account for 15% of the total number of bicycle injury crashes in Austria in 2009 – a number consistent with otherreported data on under-reporting of bicycle crashes.
Source: (Brandstaetter and Bauer 2012)CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 63

Arguably, the best measures of cycling exposure are distance, or time, cycled. In the absence of thisinformation, proxy exposure measures can be used, but these are far less accurate. For example, length ofcycling infrastructure in a particular country might give an indication of how much cycling occurs in thatcountry. It is of course possible that a country has a great deal of cycling infrastructure that does not see
much use. Other proxy measures include number of bicycles owned (some of which go unused, many ofwhich may be used exclusively for recreation) and population (many of whom don’t cycle). Rates
calculated using less accurate indicators of exposure should be treated with caution.
This report has confirmed that most countries do not collect reliable information about distances
cycled (i.e. cycling exposure) with which to calculate crash or injury rates (per kilometre travelled). This
makes it difficult to answer questions such as how safe is cycling, and how does cycling compare toother modes of travel? Without information about distances cycled in different countries it is difficult tocompare the safety of the cycling systems in those countries. Furthermore, without information about
distances cycled under different circumstances it is difficult to answer questions such as how safe iscycling-specific infrastructure compared to cycling on roads without facilities for cyclists, and how safe
is cycling during the day compared to cycling at night, and so forth? Without information about how
much cycling is being done, statements about how many cycle crashes occur are of limited use.
Countries that do collect information about the volume of bicycle travel typically do so via
relatively expensive national travel or mobility surveys based on interviews or panel travel diaries.
Depending on the survey design, some surveys may under-report the level of cycling if respondents are
asked to give only the main mode of transport used for a trip (for example, combined bicycle-public
transport trips may be counted as public transport trips only if the latter segment dominates the former).
The periodicity of travel surveys is not uniform across countries as well. Some countries, such as
Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, undertake yearly surveys, others undertake travel
surveys much less often.
In the absence of distance, duration or trip-based indicators, proxy exposure measures can be used,
but these are far less accurate. For example, length of cycling infrastructure in a particular country might
give an indication of how much cycling occurs in that country. It is of course possible that a country has
a great deal of unused cycling infrastructure, however. Other proxy measures include number of bicycles
owned (some of which go unused or are used exclusively for recreational cycling) and population (manyof whom don’t cycle). Rates calculated using the less accurate indicators of exposure should be treatedwith caution.
Traffic surveys and traffic monitoring can also give a sense of the level of bicycle use – especially at
the local or regional level or at the scale of a single facility. They also allow for more precise ex-ante andex-post assessment of specific cycling safety measures. Additional reporting may also be helpful. For
instance, the City of Copenhagen produces a biennial Bicycle Account that monitors the implementationof the city’s cycling policies and highlights opportunities for further progress. Comparative cycling
statistics can help compare performance among urban areas -- in the United States, the not-for-profit
Alliance for Biking and Walking benchmarks the cycling and walking performance among 50 States andthe 51 largest cities on the basis of comparable data sources.
Various methods have been used in this report in analyses of crash patterns to accommodate lack of
exposure information, and conclusions should be interpreted in the context of the shortcomings of thesemethods. More fundamentally, however, countries should begin to collect better exposure information if
they do not already do so in order to guide future policies and assess their effectiveness.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

64 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

1.5.

How to deliver sustainable safety? The safe system approach

Based on the previous review of evidence, it would seem that on balance, more bicycle use will bebeneficial for the health of individual cyclists and, given high rates of uptake, for the urban environment.
Given what we know about the vulnerability of cyclists in traffic, how then should authorities design
safety strategies encompassing all road users?
Authorities have often approached cycling safety (or all traffic safety) in a piecemeal and reactive
approach – focusing alternatively on cyclists, pedestrians or other traffic participants and, rarely, on theentire traffic system. Reaching high levels of safety for cyclists (and other traffic participants as well)requires a more proactive approach that seeks to design (or re-design) the system to accommodate allroad users and to account for their characteristics. This is especially true where policy would seek topreserve or increase cyclists’ numbers. If the system is unsafe for cyclists, policy should focus on making
the system safe, not just focusing on incremental improvements to cyclists’ safety in an inherently unsafe
system. The “Safe System” approach extends beyond cyclists only and has been recommended as a
general safety planning approach for all traffic classes. Safe road systems incorporate strategies for better
managing crash forces among disparate road users and should accommodate human error (OECD, 2008).
The “Safe System” approach aims to reduce or eliminate crash risk by avoiding latent errors anddangerous actions in all phases of the traffic transport system (Figure 1.8).
Figure 1.8 Schematic representation of the development of a crash
Latent errors
Dangerous actions

CRASH
Source: A. Djikstra, SWOVOne of the first iterations of the safe system approach was the “sustainably safe traffic” framework
developed in the Netherlands starting in 1992 (Koornstra et al., 1992; Wegman & Aarts, 2006). At theheart of this approach is the notion that each category of road user knows what behaviour is required ofthem and what they may expect from other road users. This implies that the all aspects of the roadenvironment should be made explicitly recognisable by each category of road user.
For infrastructure, the concept of “recognisability” in a sustainably safe traffic system rests on fivecrucial principles:Functionality



Homogeneity

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 65Predictability

ForgivenessState AwarenessWe address each of these in turn below.
Functionality
Sustainable Safety’s “functionality” requirements are intended to intrinsically guide individual road
users to choose a safe route, for themselves and also for others. The functionality principle of the trafficsystem is important to ensure that the actual use of the roads conforms to the intended use. Road systems
should be separated into different functional groups (e.g. through roads, distributor roads, residential
access roads and urban mixed residential/commercial streets). Each road or street should have one
principal function; for example, a distributor road should not have any direct dwelling access so thatusers understand clearly what they can expect in that environment (e.g. mixed traffic, pedestrians andcyclists, spontaneous road crossing behaviour, etc. on mixed residential/commercial urban streets).
According to the functionality principle, through-trips should not cross residential areas. Nor is it
desirable to for cyclists to ride along an unsafe road too long. A large residential area is safe for internal
motorised traffic as well as for cyclists and pedestrians. Too many junctions with the surrounding
through roads should be avoided. There is a balance though -- an area that is too large leads to muchinternal traffic; one that is too small leads to many junctions with surrounding through roads.
For cyclists, the benefit of this principle is that motorised traffic will be concentrated on a limited
number of main roads. Consequently, facilities for separating cyclists from motorised traffic can beconcentrated on these roads.
Homogeneity
Road crash injuries stem from differences in speed and mass amongst crash opponents. The notionof homogeneity in road design is intended to avoid large differences in speed, direction, and mass bylowering traffic speeds to levels that are safe for all participants or, if this is not possible or desirable, by
separating different traffic users based on their characteristics, mass and relative speeds. Based on thisprinciple, traffic speeds where cyclists are present or are to be encouraged should be lowered to a safe
(for cyclists and pedestrians) level, otherwise separate bicycle and motor vehicle facilities should bemade available.
Table 1.6 Safe speeds for different road types
Road types

Safe speed (km/hr)

Roads with possible conflicts between cars and unprotected users (e.g. cyclists)≤ 30

Junctions with possible lateral conflicts between motorised users

50

Roads with possible frontal conflicts between motorised users

70

Roads with no possible frontal or lateral conflicts among motorised users≥ 100

Source: A. Djikstra, SWOVCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

66 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Predictability
The design of the traffic environment (including the road and its surroundings) should increase therecognisability, and therefore the predictability, of traffic situations that may occur (Figure 1.9).
Undesirable traffic situations can thus be acknowledged and avoided in time. In particular, a predictableroad environment reduces distracting searching behaviour on the part of road users, and maximises theuse of uniform and recognisable design treatments so that users intuitively know what to expect and whatis expected of them. This is particularly important for cycling infrastructure design and treatments asthese are less harmonised internationally than for motorised traffic. Limitation of the number of roadcategories makes the largest contribution to predictability. Furthermore, the differences between roadcategories should be large, while the differences within a road category should be small. In a predictableroad environment, road users can concentrate on their main driving/riding task and conflict can bedetected at an early stage.
Figure 1.9 How “predictability” works to reduce crash risk

Source: A. Djikstra, SWOV

Forgivingness
If a crash cannot be avoided, the fourth principle, forgivingness, is meant to prevent a serious
outcome of the crash. For cyclists, this means removing possible obstacles in the cycling environment aswell as ensuring that cycling and road infrastructure design takes into account motorist behaviour (vis-àvis cyclists) and the likely behaviour of cyclists themselves (e.g. reluctance to stop and lose momentum).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 67

Figure 1.10 Bicycle facilities and bicycle share
Cycling (or walking): percentage of urban trips

Density of cycling (or walking) f acilities

Small
Low

Area 1High

MediumLargeArea 1: Small
share of cycling
trips, low densityof facilities

Area 2

Area 2: Medium
share of cycling
trips, medium
density of facilities

Area 3: Largeshare of cycling
trips, high densityof facilities

Area 3

Source: (Danish Road Directorate, 1998)

State awareness' of the road user.
Finally, a Safe System approach should include a component linked to the road users’ ability toassess their capacity to handle the driving or riding task. This means that cyclists should be trained tohandle a bicycle, but as well to use a bicycle in a mixed traffic environment. This may take place at an
early age (safety in cycling classes) but should not be neglected for new adult cyclists or those not having
any prior experience cycling in a traffic environment. This principle inherently recognises that there is no
single type of cyclist - there are old and very young cyclists, experienced and inexperienced cyclists,
commuting and recreational cyclists, etc. High impact safety policies should account for thisheterogeneity.
Safe Systems in line with local conditions
Municipalities, regions and countries display different levels of bicycle use. They also differ in the
degree to which they provide facilities for cyclists. The type of cycle facilities offered should depend on
the share of cycling -- the more cycling, the more bicycle facilities (Danish Road Directorate, 1998).
Facilities typical for a high share of cycling do not fit in a traffic environment with a low share, while
facilities belonging to a low share are not compatible with a high bicycle share (Figure 1.10). Setting
facilities within their context can help avoid “over” or “under” investing in safety.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

68 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHESKey Messages
Many jurisdictions have or are putting in place pro-cycling policies and yet evidence points to thevulnerability of cyclists in road traffic. Do policies that increase the number of cyclists contributeto less safety and more crashes?

The short answer to this question is that when the number of cyclists increase, the number ofcrashes, both fatal and non-fatal, may increase as well – but not necessarily so if attention is paid
to good policy design.

Furthermore, the rate of cycling crashes may decrease, especially if accompanying safetyimproving policies are implemented.

Many authorities are poorly equipped to assess the impact of pro-cycling and cycling safety
policies as data on bicycle crashes is biased by under-recording and few authorities, especially at
the national level, collect adequate exposure data necessary to understand crash rates in relation tobicycle usage.



There is an observed safety-improving effect correlated with large numbers of cyclists however
this “safety in numbers” or more precisely “awareness in numbers” effect cannot be shown to becausal – pro-cycling policies should seek to increase safety and not just the number of cyclists.

Cycling safety should not be disassociated from the overall health impacts of cycling. Pursuingincreased safety for cycling makes sense since these policies expressly reduce the negative
outcomes linked to crashes for those already cycling. Understanding the balance of
positive/negative health outcomes from cycling, however, is essential in helping frame efforts toincrease cycling.



Robust and consistent evidence indicates that the health benefits derived primarily from physicalexercise due to cycling outstrips by several orders of magnitude the negative health outcomes for
cyclists linked to crashes and exposure to air pollution. Pro-cycling policies have a largely
beneficial impact on society despite higher crash rates than cars or public transportation.



As far as crash outcomes are concerned, two, not incompatible approaches, present themselves.
o

The first is to attenuate the severity of crash outcomes in an otherwise dangerous systemby, for instance, focusing on protective equipment for cyclists and vehicles, andoThe second is to make the road environment itself safer via a “Safe System” approachthat focuses on speed management and reducing the possibility for unequal (in mass,
speed and behaviour) crash opponents from coming into contact with one another in thefirst place.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 69

Notes

1.

Absent other accompanying policies, it is not at all clear that pro-cycling policies alone can reduce
congestion and pollution since newly released roadway capacity may be taken up by automobile
traffic.

2.

The 2004 report “National Policies to Improve Cycling” (ECMT, 2004) highlights the motivations
behind national efforts to increase cycling.

3.

Cycling was found to be 2.5 times more deadly per billion kilometres of travel including motorway
travel by cars and 2 times more deadly per billion kilometres of travel when excluding motorway
travel by cars.

4.

10% if including taxis.

5.

Pro-cycling policies are also credited with congestion reduction benefits. For the same reasons
outlined above, these may be (greatly) overestimated; at least insofar as road congestion isconcerned. Nonetheless, there may very well be a not-inconsequential public transport congestion
reduction benefit linked to pro-cycling policies that successfully attract new riders.

6.

Evidence indicates that fine particulate matter emitted by internal combustion engines is more toxic
than background levels of fine particulate matter (Laden, et al. 2000) – this suggests that a reductionin ambient levels of particulate matter emitted by motor vehicles would have a disproportionate andbeneficial health impact.

7.

This suggests that the installing bicycle facilities that severely reduce or eliminate polluting vehicles
from such streets would reduce pollutant exposure, at least locally.

8.

Consistent with the time-lagged nature of the formation of ozone. By the time primary pollutants aretransformed into ozone, the pollutant plume will have moved downwind away from emission
sources.

9.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/reported-road-casualties-gb-main-results-2010, accessed 10
September 2012.

10. Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) are defined by the World Health Organization as the sumof life years lost (YLL) and years of poor health (YLD) linked to health burden. One DALY can beinterpreted as “one lost year of healthy life”.
11. and one third of overall crash victims.
12. Lower bound of car-to-bicycle mode shift and lower bound of air pollution-related deaths.
13. (Börjesson and Eliasson 2011) note that while the case for full inclusion of health benefits asadditional benefits in CBA may be overstated, they find that cyclists’ high values of time in theirstudy and the low relative cost of cycling infrastructure still imply positive BCRs for cycling
infrastructure investments.
14. This finding, however, should not be seen as a way of minimising the importance of reducing crash rates

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

70 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

References

Aertsens, Joris, et al. “Commuting by bike in Belgium, the costs of minor accidents.” Accident Analysis
and Prevention 42 (2010).
Ajuntament di Barcelona. “Estudi d'habits de mobilitat dels usuaris del Bicing, Aad Marketing.” An
analysis of public bicycle sharing schemes implementation processes (Authors: Beroud, B. andAnaya, E.) in Cycling and Sustainability (2012). Edited by John Parkin. London: Emerald Group
Publishing, 2007.
Bachand-Marleau, Julie, Jacob Larsen, and Ahmed M. El-Geneidy. “The much anticipated marriage ofcycling and transit: But how will it work?” Transportation Research Record 2247 (2011).
Beck, Laurie, F., Ann, M. Dellinger, and Mary, E. O’Neil. “Motor Vehicle Crash Injury Rates by Modeof Travel, United States: Using Exposure-Based Methods to Quantify Differences.” American
Journal of Epidemiology (e Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) 166, no. 2 (2007).
Bendl, Jiri. “Cycling and Health Related Analyses.” Seoul, 7 April 2011.
Beroud, Benoït. “Four years down the path, what is the mobility impact of Vélo'v?” Mobility,
The European Public Transport Magazine 16 (January 2010).
Bhatia, R., and M. Wier. “"Safety in "numbers" re-examined: Can we make valid or practical inferencesfrom available evidence?” Accident Analysis and Prevention 43, no. 1 (2012): 235-240.
Börjesson, Maria, and Jonas Eliasson. “The value of time and external benefits in bicycle appraisal.”
Transportation Research Part A 46, no. 9 (2011).
Brandstaetter, C., and R. Bauer. “Road Accident Health Indicators .” presentation given to European
Road Safety Conference on Data and Knowledge-based Policy-making. Athens: KFV,
22-23 November 2012.
Brauer, M., and C. Cole. “Cycling, air pollution exposure and health: An overview of research findings.”
Presentation given at VeloCity 2012. Vancouver, 27 June 2012.
Broughton, J., et al. Estimation of the real number of road casualties in Europe. Brussels: European
Commission DG-TREN, 2008.
Bull, F.C., T.P. Armstrong, T. Dixon, S. Ham, A. Neiman, and M. Pratt. “Physical Inactivity.”
Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. Edited by M. Ezatti, A.D. Lopez, A. Rodgers and
C.J.L. Murray. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004.
Cavill, N., S. Kahlmeier, H. Rutter, F. Racioppi, and P. Oja. “Economic analyses of transport
infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: A systematic
review.” Transport Policy 15, no. 5 (2008): 291-304.
Chong, S., R. Poulos, J. Oliver, W.L. Watson, and R. Grzebieta. “RElative injury severity among
vulnerable non-motorised road users: Comparative analysis of injury arising from bicycle-motor
vehicle and bicycle-pedestrian collisions.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, no. 1 (2009):
290-296.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 71

Cole-Hunter, T., L. Morawska, R. Jayaratne, and C. Solomon. “Inhaled particle counts on bicycle
commute routes of low and high proximity to motorised traffic.” Atmospheric Environment
61 (2012): 197-203.
de Geus, B., et al. “A prospective cohort study on minor accidents involving commuter cyclists in
Belgium.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012): 683–693.
de Geus, Bas, et al. “A prospective cohort study on minor accidents involving commuter cyclists in
Belgium.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012).
de Hartog, J.J., H. Boogaard, H. Nijland, and G. Hoek. “Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh therisks?” Environmental Health Perspectives 118, no. 8 (2010): 1109-1116.
De Jong, Piet, The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws, Risk Analysis, 2012.
De Mol, J., and P. Lammar. “Helft verkeersslachtoffers komt niet in statistieken. Koppeling ziekenhuisen politieregistratie noodzakelijk: Half the road victims are not reported in the statistics.”
Verkeersspecialist (Wolters Kluwer) 130 (2006): 15-18.
de Nazelle, A., et al. “A travel mode comparison of commuters' exposure to air pollutants in Barcelona.”
Atmospheric Environment 59 (2012): 151-159.
de Nazelle, A., et al. “Improving health through policies that promote active travel: A review of evidence
to support integrated health impact assessment.” Environment International 37, no. 4 (May 2011).
Dekoster, J., and U. Schollaert. Cycling: The Way Ahead for Towns and Cities. Bruxelles: European
Commission, 1999.
Dhondt, S., C. Macharis, N. Terryn, F. Van Malderen, and K. Putman. “Health burden of road traffic
accidents, an analysis of clinical data on disability and mortality exposure rates in Flanders andBrussels.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012.
ECMT. “National POlicies to Promote Cycling.” Paris: European Conference of Ministers of Transport,
OECD Publishing, 2004.
Eenink, R., Reurings, M., Elvik, R., Cardoso, J., Wichert, S., Stefan, C., 2007. Accident prediction
models and road safety impact assessment: recommendations for using these tools. Report R1SWOV-WP2-D2-F, SWOV, Leidschendam.
Elvik, R. “The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport.”
Accident Analysis and Prevention 41, no. 4 (2009): 849–855.
Elvik, R., A. Høye, T. Vaa, and M. Sørensen. The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. Bingly: Emerald
Group Publishing, Ltd., 2009.
Feng, Z., R.P. Raghuwanshi, Z. Xu, D. Huang, C. Zhang, and T. Jin. “Electric bicycle-related injury: A
rising traffic injury burden in China.” Injury Prevention 16 (2010): 417-419.
Gallup. “Future of transport.” Flash Eurobarometer Report. European Commission, 2011.
GDV. Safety Aspects of High-Speed Pedelecs. Berlin: Unfallforschung der Versicherer : German
Insurance Association, 2011.
Grabow, Maggie L., Scott N. Spak, Tracey Holloway, Brian Stone Jr., Adam C. Mednick, and Jonothan
A. Patz. “Air quality and exercise-related health benefits from reduced car travel in the
Midwestern United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120, no. 1 (2012).
Hamer, M., and Y. Chida. “Active commuting and cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysic review.”
Preventative Medecine 46, no. 1 (January 2008).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

72 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Hamer, M., and Y. Chida. “Physical activity and risk of neurodegenerative disease: a systematic review
of prospective evidence.” Physiological Medecine 39, no. 1 (2009).
Harriss, D.J., et al. “Lifestyle factors and colorectal cancer risk-2: asystemic review and meta-analysis ofassociations with leisure-time physical activity.” Colorectal Disease 11, no. 7 (2009).
Hendriksen, I., L. Engbers, J. Schrijver, R. van Gijlswijk, J. Weltevreden, and J. Wilting. Elektrische
Fietsen: Marktonderzoek en verkenning toekomstmogelijkheden. Leiden: TNO, 2008.
Hoffman, M.R., W.E. Lambert, E.G. Peck, and J.C. Mayberry. “Bicycle commuter injury prevention: It
is time to focus on the environment.” Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection and Critical Care (renamed Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery), 2010.
Houtenbos, M. Expecting the unexpected: A study of interactive driving behaviour at intersections.
Leidshendam: SWOV, 2008.
Hubert, J.P., and P. Toint. “La Mobilité Quotidienne des Belges.” Namur: Presses Universitaires, 2002.
Hudson, M., 1978. The Bicycle Planning Book. Open Books, London (UK).
Int Panis, L., and J.J. de Hartog. “Correspondence: Cycling: Health Benefits.” Environmental Health
Perspectives 119, no. 3 (2011): 114-115.
Int Panis, L., et al. Systematic Analysis of Health Risks and Physical Activity Associated with Cycling
Policies "SHAPES". Brussels: Belgian Science Policy, 2011.
IRTAD. “Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties: Combining different data sources to improveunderstanding of non-fatal road traffic crashes.” Paris: OECD/International Transport Forum,
2012.
IRTAD. Road Safety Annual Report 2011. Paris: International Road Traffic Safety Data and Analysis
Group, OECD/ITF Publishing, 2011.
Jacobsen, P.L. “Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling.” Injury
Prevention 9, no. 3 (2003): 205-209.
Jeon, C.Y., R.P. Lokken, F.B. Hu, and R.M. van Dam. “Physical activity of moderate intensity and riskof type 2 diabetes.” Diabetes Care 30, no. 3 (2007).
Juhra, C., et al. “Bicycle accidents – Do we only see the tip of the iceberg?A prospective multi-centre
study in a large German city combining medical and police data.” Injury, 2011.
Karner, A. A., D.S. Eisinger, and D.A. Niemeir. “Near roadway air quality: Synthesizing the findings
from real world data.” Environmental Science and Technology 44 (2010): 5334-5344.
Kendrick, C.M., et al. “Impact of bicycle lane characteristics on exposure of bicyclists to traffic-relatedparticulate matter.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
2247 (2011): 24-26.
Koornstra, M.J., Mathijssen, M.P.M., Mulder, J.A.G., Roszbach, R., Wegman, F.C.M., 1992. Naar een
duurzaam veilig wegverkeer [towards sustainably safe road traffic], SWOV, Leidschendam.
Knibbs, L.D., T. Cole-Hunter, and L. Morowska. “A review of commuter exposure to ultrafine particles
and its health effects.” Atmospheric Environment 45, no. 16 (2011): 2611-2622.
Laden, F., L.M. Neas, D.W. Dockery, and J. Schwartz. “Association of fine particulate matter fromdifferent sources with daily mortality in six U.S. cities.” Environmental Health Perspectives 108(2000): 941-947.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 73

Langley, J.D., N. Dow, S. Stephenson, and K. Kypri. “Missing cyclists.” Injury Prevention 9, no. 4(2003): 376-379.
Lenten, G., and B. Stockmann. Elektrische fietsen en verkeersveiligheid. ZWOLLE: Regionaal Orgaan
voor de Verkeersveiligheid in Overijssel, 2010.
Mapes, J. Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists are Changing American Cities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University Press, 2009.
Marshall, J.D., M. Brauer, and M.D. Frank. “Healthy neighbourhoods: Walkability and air pollution.”
Environmental Health Perspectives 117, no. 11 (2009).
Martensen, H., and N. Nuyttens. “Rapport thématique Cyclistes: Accidents de la route impliquant descyclistes.” Edited by M. Van Houtte. Bruxelles: Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière, 2009.
McNabola, A., B.M. Broderick, and L.W. Gill. “Relative exposure to fine particulate matter and VOCs
between transport microenvironments in Dublin: Personal exposure and uptake.” Atmospheric
Environment 42, no. 26 (2008): 6496-6512.
Monninkhof, E.M., et al. “Physical activity and breast cancer: a systematic review.” Epidemiology 18,
no. 1.
OECD, 2008. Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach.
OECD/ITF, Paris.
Paffenbarger, R.S., I.M. Lee, and R. Leung. “Physical activity and personal characteristics associatedwith depression and suicide in American college men.” Acta Psychiactrica Scandinavica 89, no.
s377 (1994).
Rabl, A., and A. de Nazelle. “Benefits of shift from car to active transport.” Transport Policy 19, no. 1(2012): 121-131.
Räsänen, M., and H. Summala. “Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car collisions: An indepth study.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 30, no. 5 (1998): 657–666.
Road Directorate Denmark, 1998. Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking. Adonis-Project. Road
Directorate Denmark, Copenhagen.
Roetynck, A. PRESTO Cycling Policy Guide: Electric Bicycles. PRESTO - Promoting Cycling for
Eveyrone as a Daily Transport Mode, Brussels: European Union, 2010.
Rojas-Rueda, D., A. de Nazelle, M. Tainio, and M.J. Nieuwenhuijsen. “The health risks and benefits ofcycling in urban environments compared with car use: Health impact assessment study.” BMJ 343(2011).
Rutter, H. Mortality Benefits of Cycling in London. London: Transport for London, 2006.
Schepers, P. “Phoning while cycling: Safety aspects.” Paper presented to the European Conference ofTransport Research Institutes, 2007.
Schepers, P., and K. Klein Wolt. “Single-bicycle crash types and characteristics.” Cycling ResearchInternational, 2012.
Schepers, Paul. “Does more cycling also reduce the risk of single bicycle crashes?” Injury Prevention 18,
no. 4 (2012).
Schepers, J.P., Voorham, J., 2010. Oversteekongevallen met fietsers. Het effect van
infrastructuurkenmerken op voorrangskruispunten. Rijkswaterstaat Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart,
Delft.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

74 – 1. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Shaheen, Susan, Hua Zhang, Eliott Martin, and Stacey Guzman. “China’s Hangzhou Public Bicycle:
Understanding early adoption and behavioural responses to Bikesharing.” Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies), no. 2247 (2011).
Teschke, K., C.C.O. Reynolds, F.J. Ries, B. Gouge, and M. Winters. “Bicycling: Health risk or benefit.”
University of British Columbia Medical Journal 3, no. 2 (2012): 6-11.
Tin Tin, Sandar, Alistair Woodward, and Shanthi Ameratunga. “Injuries to pedal cyclists on New
Zealand Roads, 1988-2007.” BMC Public Health 10 (2010).
US DHHS. “Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report.” Washington, D.C.: Physical
Guidelines Advisory Committee, United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2008.
Van Hout, Kurt. “De risico's van fietsen: Feiten, cijfers en vaststellingen.” RA-2007-108. Diepenbeek:
Steunpunt Verkeersveiligheid, January 2007.
Van Kempen, E.E.E.M., Swart, W., Wendel-Vos, G.C.W., Steinberger, P.E., Knol, A.B., Stipdonk, H.L.,
Reurings, M.C.B., “Exchanging car trips by cycling in the Netherlands: A first examination of thehealth benefits”, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Report no.
630053001/2010, Bilthoven, Netherlands, 2010.
Wee, J.H., J.H. Park, K.N. Park, and S.P. Choi. “A comparative study of bike lane injuries.” Trauma 72,
no. 2 (2012): 448-453.
Wegman, F., Zhang, F. & Dijkstra, A. (2011). How to make more cycling good for road safety? In:
Accident Analysis and Prevention 44 (2012), pp.19 - 29.
Wegman, F., and L. Aarts. “Advancing Sustainable Safety.” Leidschendam: SWOV Institute for Road
Safety Research, 2006.
Weichenthal, S., R. Kulka, A. Dubeau, C. Martin, D. Wang, and R. Dales. “Traffic-related air pollution
and acute changes in heart rate variability and respiratory function in urban cyclists.”
Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 10 (2011): 1373-1378.
WHO. “Burden of disease from environmental noise: Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe.”
Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office and Joint Research Centre (JRC) EC, 2011.
Woodcock, J., et al. “Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: urban landtransport.” The Lancet 374, no. 9705 (December 2009).
Wundersitz, L.N., and T.P. Hutchinson. “Identifying and improving exposure measures.” Adelaide:
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, University of Adelaide, December 2008.
Yang, L., J. Panter, S.J. Griffon, and D. Ogilvie. “Associations between active commuting and physicalactivity in working adults: Cross-sectional results from the Commuting and Health in Cambridge
study.” Preventive Medicine, 2012.
Yu, Q., et al. “Commuters' exposure to PM1 by common travel modes in Shanghai.” Atmospheric
Environment 59 (2012): 39-46.
Zuurbier, M., et al. “Commuters' exposure to particulate matter pollution is affected by mode oftransport, fuel type and route.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118, no. 6 (2010): 783

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 75

2. Policy measures and administrative framework for bicycle safety

This Chapter looks at how countries and regional/local authorities are developing, facilitating or
guiding cycling policy. Based on a questionnaire of International Transport Forum members, thischapter inventories national cycle plans and discusses their key features. It also reviews thedifferent legal frameworks and rules surrounding bicycles and cycling across countries andpresents some findings relating to the funding of bicycle infrastructure and programmes.
2.1

Introduction and Methodology

There are a number of countries, regions and municipalities which are seeking to develop, or insome cases, retain, cycling as an important element of everyday mobility. In order to achieve this aim,
many have developed explicit pro-cycling policies. While most pro-cycling efforts are anchored at the
local or regional level, having a supportive framework at the national level can serve as a catalyst andcan ensure widespread implementation. In this section, we focus mainly on these national-level policies,
building on a previous survey undertaken in 2004 (ECMT 2004). In particular, this chapter reviews therole of safety in cycling related policy.
We define cycling policy here as the different instruments devoted to bicycle mobility including:Planning instruments: particularly those related to mobility1 or safety thematicLegislation

Budget

Other measures

Planning and legislative instruments have been reviewed from the perspective of their actual content
as well from the perspective of the administrative framework in which they are embedded. In addition,
we describe (where available) the budgetary treatment of cycling policies and other related measures.
The information presented in this survey was obtained via a common questionnaire circulated toInternational Transport Forum members in 2010. The questionnaire comprised one part focusing on
policy and asked the following:

What is the main focus in current cycling or transport policy regarding cycling safety?

What is the administrative structure regarding bicycle use?



What is the role of cycling in urban planning?

Is there a national cycling safety plan?

What is the budget allocated to the promotion and improvement of cycling safety?

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

76 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

A related set of questions regarding legislation was also sent:

2.2

Which laws regulate road safety aspects related to cycling and what level of authority is
responsible for implementing these regulations?



Are bicycles treated explicitly in road safety legislation?

Do sub-national authorities have jurisdiction for cycling safety policy? Which aspects arecovered by these authorities?

What are some Please, name some of the specific aspects related to the use of bicycle
contained in your country’s regulations established by national/federal authorities

Cycling and Safety Planning

Countries vary in their approach to cycling policy and to safety policy for cycling. There are two
principal manners in which cycling safety planning has been approached; plans focusing on improving
road safety specifically or plans addressing transport, spatial, environmental and health planning moregenerally. Even though the second approach does not target safety specifically, its outcomes inevitably
have an impact on cycling and thus can have an impact on cycling safety. This chapter focuses on thefirst approach – plans focussing expressly on improving road safety. Nevertheless approaches belonging
to the second category are important to account for, especially when there is no specific policy regarding
cycling safety.
Institutional Framework
Policies at the national level generally seek to promote improved safety for cycling throughmeasures which create a friendlier environment for cyclists; planning instruments, legislation,
enforcement, guidelines, awareness campaigns, training initiatives, promotion of best practices andresearch.
Regional authorities are typically in charge of elaborating on the general framework established bynational government in relation to legislation and political guidelines. They are also typically responsiblefor developing a transport network which enhances intermodal links, enforcing legislation and financing
programmes and infrastructure.
Local authorities are typically responsible for building and maintaining cycling infrastructure. Like
regional authorities, they too may be responsible for the enforcement of legislation and funding
programmes and infrastructure.
Planning and Strategy
Given that cycling is primarily a means of local, short-distance transport, many local authorities
play a strong role in deploying supportive policies that, in some cases, build on higher level plans. In
some countries these policies may only focus on education whereas in others, there is a strong focus onplanning, building and improving cycling infrastructure. However, in many cases the existence of anational-level cycling policy framework serves to inspire, support and helps coordinate efforts among
different institutional levels2, particularly at the local level. Indeed, in 2004 the European Conference ofMinisters of Transport (ECMT) stressed that “national-level commitment [is] important in setting theright legal, regulatory and financial framework so that successful implementation of cycling strategies
can take place” (ECMT 2004). In 2004, 75% of the countries surveyed by ECMT had in place national
plans and since then, several more have been announced. These plans help guide local and regional

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 77

deployment of pro-cycling policies and in many cases, countries have explicit plans relating to cycling
safety.
Responsibility for national transport planning is assigned to specific transport departments. In thecase of Spain, responsibility is assigned to the “Dirección General de Tráfico” (Ministry of Interior) incharge of traffic. This responsibility may be assigned to authorities responsible for transport generally(Austria, Czech Republic or Netherlands), roads (Denmark with the Road Directorate, in the Ministry ofTransport and Japan), or other authorities with broader responsibilities relating to mobility (e.g. Ministryof Sustainable Development in France). In Korea bicycle network planning is under the authority of the
Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MOPAS) while bicycle safety planning is under the
responsibility of Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM).
Some countries have an independent national entity that manages and coordinates implementationof the national bicycle plan or strategy. This is the case of the Australian Bicycle Council (ABC) thatmanages and coordinates implementation of The Australian National Cycling Strategy 2011 – 2016,
produced by the Australian Transport Council3 (The Australian Transport Council, which also produced
the National Road Safety Strategy, was replaced by the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructurein September 2011). The Australian Bicycle Council4 is part of Austroads, the association of Australianand New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities. ABC members are government representatives,state and territory road and transport agencies, local government, bicycle industry and cyclist users.
The case of Denmark is illustrative of a broad scale approach extending beyond transport alone. The
last national cycling plan was issued in the 1990’s but since then cycling has been addressed by more
holistic plans such as the “Transport and Energy Strategy”, “Green Transport Plan” or “Sustainable
Mobility” strategy. The latter plan establishes a broad framework for integrating cycling into not justtransport planning, but energy and environmental planning as well.
There is also a particular case in France where, from 2006 on, an interministerial coordinator forbicycle policy, “Monsieur Vélo5” is in charge of implementation of the national bicycle policy. Anothersimilar mechanism is the German Joint Working Group on Cycling (B/L-AK) supervised by the Ministryof Transport Building and Urban Development (BMBVS). Since 1998, this body brings together all
levels of administrations, transport operators, cycling, cyclists’ associations and other stakeholders.
Topics addressed by this Group are: regulatory framework, coordination, funding, tourism andcommunication.6.
In some of cases where no national plan exists, regional authorities fill this gap as in the case ofBelgium.
Road safety
Road safety regulations and planning typically occurs at the national level in almost all cases.
France is one exception which does not have a National Safety Plan, and where road safety policy isderived from Ministers’ councils and regulations. In federal governments, regions and states can adopt
different approaches to cycling safety as in the mandatory use of helmets, for example, as in the UnitedStates and Canada (and as it used to be the case in Australia).
Governmental bodies in charge of road safety can be part of the Ministries of Interior, with abehavioural, sanctioning and control approach towards safety (for example, Spain and France) or
ministries in charge of transport and infrastructures (for example, Denmark, Poland and Japan).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

78 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

At a local level, road safety regulations are often embedded either in traffic by-laws or cyclingplans, linked to national plans and policies (if they exist).
Measures and key priorities
The principal objectives of cycling-related plans of countries surveyed for this report are:


To increase the number of people cycling

To improve safety and security awareness when cyclingTo balance cycling speed and comfort

One of the principal motivators for promoting bicycle use is the benefits that cycling brings to bothsociety and people7. Cycling is often portrayed as an enjoyable activity that promotes healthy (andhealth-improving) exercise and contributes to reducing the environmental impacts related to transport.
Other purported benefits include the reduction of congestion and improvement of quality of life. On theother hand, many plans note that cyclists are vulnerable road users8, and so most of strategies include
specific measures to make cycling safer.
The following typology of measures is included in mobility or safety planning instruments with thespecific objective to increase safety
Infrastructure
Most measures relating to cycling infrastructure identified in this scan tend to be non-compulsory
guidelines. These include Denmark’s “Collection of cycling concepts” (2012), or France’s “Fiches Vélo”
fact sheets edited by the Centre for studies on networks, transport, town planning and public building(CERTU). In the Netherlands, the public-private non-profit National Information and Technology Centre
for Transport and Infrastructure (CROW) issues cycling guidelines9. In the United States, two nationallevel guidelines for bicycle infrastructure design exist, the American Association of State Highway andTransportation Official’s (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (4 th Edition and
the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide`.
Neither is compulsory but the former has historically served as a reference to ensure that local bicycle
infrastructure meets a recognised standard. Some countries have issued regulations about technicalguidelines, making them compulsory, like Italy10 and Korea where the Ministry for Land, Transport andMaritime affairs has recently amended technical guidelines for building bicycle roads (July 2010).
Regional and local authorities are typically in charge of constructing bicycle infrastructure with thefollowing measures appearing prominently the local and regional plans reviewed:

Developing consistent bicycle networks with adapted infrastructure solutions

Ensuring safe crossing conditions



Maintaining cycle paths clean and in good condition

The design and implementation of national level cycling networks (These networks are principally
devoted to tourism and leisure) have traditionally been piloted by cycling non-profit organizations, as in
the case of the UK (National Cycle Network, promoted by Sustrans with funding from the National
Lottery) or Italy (Rete ciclabile nazionale, promoted by the national bicycle promotion organisation Federazione Italiana Amici della Bicicletta - FIAB). In contrast, France’s “Mission National desVeloroutes” has the support of the Ministry of Sustainable Development11. The network Eurovelo (anCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 79

initiative by the European Cyclists’ Federation) gathers and connects national level networks forming a
European cycling network. In Spain, the Spanish Railways Foundation12 (FFE), currently a foundation of
the state sector and managed by different public enterprises related to Spanish railways has developed the
project, Vías Verdes (Green Ways) that consist of recovering and reconditioning old disused railway
lines to be used by walkers and cyclists. Similarly, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy in the United Stateshelps authorities and citizen’s organisations create linear parks for cyclists and pedestrians fromabandoned railroad corridors.
Signalisation
Road traffic signals aim to warn drivers of cyclist’s presence. Signalisation contributes to cycling
conspicuity, a key aspect for safety.
Traffic calming
Traffic calming is refers to efforts to reduce motorised vehicle speeds in residential and urban corezones so as to facilitate sharing roadspace with cyclists and pedestrians. Some national safety plans, likethe Czech Republic, focus on the intelligent coexistence of cyclists in urban traffic flow. Other countries
formalise the definition of traffic-calmed zones (30km zones, complete streets, etc.) Concrete measures
found in these plans include:Road safety-oriented categorisation of road users and uses.

Improvement of those roads and streets shared by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles throughphysical and regulatory traffic calming measures.

Training, campaigns and information
Most national safety plans include awareness campaigns on the following topics:Road safety education for cyclists (for children, adults or the elderly): For example, theNetherlands has a longstanding (since 1932) tradition of bicycle training for children that
culminates with a written and on-road practical traffic exam (“Verkeersexamen”13, Figure2.1). This ensures that road users (both cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles) understandsafety rules and practices necessary to ride in traffic and on different types of bicycle
facilities. Other examples include the “Brevet du cycliste”14 campaign in the Wallonie
region of Belgium that provides cycling safety training for children of school age. Anotherexample is the “Bikeability”15 cycle safety education project of the UK Department forTransport.

Campaigns to promote the use of bicycles (and walking) to access schools. One example is
the US “Safe Routes to School Program”.



Cycle awareness campaigns for motor vehicle users: These seek to integrate cycling issues
and awareness of cyclists’ behaviour into car driving courses and driver license education.



Making cycling attractive: to promote cycling as a popular means of transport and as an
enjoyable recreational activity (e.g. the Federal Ministry for the Environment (Germany)“Radlust”16 (the joy of cycling) campaign.



Awareness-raising regarding drivers’ blind spots: In this regard, the Dutch Ministry ofTransport launched the campaign “Alle regels rondom spiegels” in 2007 to inform lorry
drivers of the perils of blind spots17. Between 2004 and 2007, fatalities among cyclists due

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

80 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

to crashes involving lorries averaged 34 per year. In addition, there is an average number of
71 casualties each year.18
Figure 2.1 Extract from the Dutch Verkeersexamen child traffic safety exam

Source: Veiligverkeer NL., http://www.veiligverkeernederland.nl/kids/node/27535/quiz/start, accessed 24 September 2013
(Translated by Google translate)

Ensuring vehicle and operator safety
Most countries have in place rules relating to the safety of motor vehicles and some of these rules
relate specifically to safety in regards to pedestrian and cyclist crashes. These rules may cover vehicle
design standards, safety equipment for cyclists and traffic rules relating to cycling.
Enforcement and legislation
In some cases, national plans also contain measures regarding legislation and enforcement. In
particular, these measures relate to:Enforcement of speed limits, especially in urban areas.

Promotion of measures to sanction dangerous or illegal behaviour on the part of somecyclists (especially behaviour which can result in injuries pedestrians or other cyclists).

Research and knowledge sharing
Some national plans call for efforts to improve accident-related analysis and research, on monitoringand evaluating cycling programs. Some plans also call for work on developing a national decisionmaking process in support of investment for cycling.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 81

In many instances, there are national-level cycling promotion agencies and institutions in charge offacilitating the development of pro-cycling policies:In Germany, the Bicycle Academy is one of the 4 pillars of the national bicycle policy(together with the national working group, an internet portal and a federal aid program). The
academy is funded by the Federal Ministry of Transportation, Building and Urban
Development (BMVBS) and provides training for the municipal administration.19

In Australia, the Australian Bicycle Council houses the Cycling Resources Centre20, which
provides information related to cycling: planning, education, promotion, road safety,
recreation, funding sources and research.

The Cycling Embassy of Denmark21 is a comprehensive network of private companies,
local authorities and non-governmental organizations working together to promote cycling
and communicate cycling solutions and know-how around the world.

In the Netherlands, Fietsberaad22 is an expertise centre for cycling policy financed by the
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. The objective of this centre is
the development, dissemination and exchange of practical knowledge and experience forcycling policy and it aims to be the portal for cycling knowledge worldwide, in order topromote cycling as an everyday means of transport. Fietsberaad supports the Cycling
Embassy of the Netherlands which helps to disseminate Dutch cycling knowledge
internationally. In addition, the Dutch national road safety research institute, SWOV, issues
fact sheets about cycling safety and carries out research in this field.23.

In the Czech Republic, the Transport Research Centre24 has a Bicycle Coordinator who isin charge of the cycling policy issues. The centre houses a website devoted to the cycling
strategy25. This Centre is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport.

Best practices and networks
In some countries, best practice networks have developed to further the uptake of cycling, especiallyat the local level. Such networks of “cycling cities” or “offices of the bicycle” serve as clearinghouses for
information requests by local and regional administrations. These agencies are usually managed by
nonprofit organizations. Examples include the “Red de ciudades por la bicicleta” (Spain) and the “Clubde Villes Cyclables” (France).
Other measures for increasing the use of the bicycle
These are measures not devoted specifically to cycling safety, but may help generate an indirect
effect on road safety via the greater bicycle use. Ultimately, whether or not increased cycling leads toimproved safety is conditioned on the effect of accompanying policies but these types of policies areoften part of an overall approach to addressing cycling and its safety.
Integration with public transport: When combined with public transport, cycling can serveas an essential range extender for travellers. Integration can be achieved through goodconnectivity of public transport facilities with cycling facilities and bicycle services as well
as allowing, where possible, for bicycles to be transported on public transport networks.
Bicycle-public transport integration features essentially at the local and regional level

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

82 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

though national authorities may encourage this practice as well.


Parking facilities: Ensuring adequate on-street, workplace and commercial bicycle parking
can help in the uptake of cycling. Local authorities and transport operators often play a role
here though the generalised framework for the taxation of workplace provided parking may
also come into play here as well.

Cycle hire schemes: Bicycle sharing schemes have developed rapidly in recent years
throughout the world (see Figure 1.1). They facilitate the use of bicycles by those who donot, or cannot (because of home parking space or storage space constraints), own them.
They also serve as a catalyst for cycling since they raise the visibility and attractiveness ofcycling by inhabitants in cities where they have been deployed.

Security: Fear of theft is an important deterrent to cycling and policies that reduce the threatof theft can serve to increase cycling. Addressing bicycle theft requires a broad approach
implicating key stakeholders and including some or all of the following components:
Bicycle registers, dissuasive public (shared) bike deposits, parking design and location,
guarded bicycle parking and bicycle theft insurance are some of the aspects at stake about
cycling security.

Urban planning: Land use planning that results in short trips and ensures high quality
access in dense urban neighbourhoods facilitates the uptake of cycling. Along with thefunctional categorisation of neighbourhoods and streets, bicycle and cycling friendly land
use planning can also contribute to reduced crash risk and lessened severity of crashoutcomes via slower traffic speeds and reducing the number of motor vehicle-bicycle
conflicts.

Monitoring policy implementation: Not all jurisdictions having a bicycle plan consistently
monitor its implementation or its effects but many do. Some countries regularly monitor
cycling activity as part of ongoing travel surveys (e.g. Denmark, Netherlands and United
Kingdom). At the local level, some jurisdictions publish detailed reporting of progress on
multiple policy objectives. A good example of this approach is the biennial Copenhagen
Bicycle Account.

Description of selected national plans and polices
Australia
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

Australian National Cycling Strategy 2011-201626..

National Road Safety Strategy 2011-202027

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Promotion of cycling as a safe and enjoyable activity and mode of transport, create a comprehensive andcontinuous cycling network and end-of-trip facilities, improving monitoring and evaluation programs support
the development of national guidance for stakeholder and share best practices
Cycling and/or safety goals
To double the number of people cycling in Australia by 2016CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 83

Austria
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

Masterplan Radfahren 2007-2012

Road Safety program 2011-2020

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Safety road categorization, “shared space”, training courses on safety and behaviour, road campaigns, speed
limits regulation, mandatory helmet for children.
Cycling and/or safety goals
An increase of the National cycling modal shift from 5% to 10% in 10 years (2017). Prevent 900 child head
injuries

Belgium
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

No national cycling plan.

No national safety plan.

Regional cycling strategies (one per region):

Safety plans are developed at regional & local levels(one per region) : Plan Vélo 2010-2015 of the Brussels CapitalRegion
 Mobiliteitsplan Vlaanderen 2012-2020 of theFlemish Region
 Plan Wallonie cyclable 2010-2020 of the
Walloon Region

 Plan de securité routière 2010-2020 of theBrussels Capital-Region
 Verkeersveiligheidsplan Vlaanderen of theFlemish Region
 Etats généraux de la sécurité routière of the
Walloon Region

Main focus of cycling safety policy
 Development of high quality cycling infrastructure.
 Publication of best practice guidelines.
 Cycling promotion campaigns.
 Implementation of new traffic regulations (the so-called street code or code de la rue/straatcode) in view ofbetter protecting the most vulnerable road users.
Cycling and/or safety goals
No national goals.
Regional goals : The Brussels Capital-Region aims at a 20 % cycling share in trips by 2018 and at reducing the number ofaccidents by 50 % by 2015.
 The Flemish Region has set as an overall goal (so not just for cyclists) a maximum of 250 fatalities and
2 000 seriously injured by 2015.
 To date, the Walloon Region has not yet determined specific figures. However, it has expressed the will tosignificantly increase bicycle use and cycling facilities quality by 2020.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

84 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

Czech Republic
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

National cycling development strategy, 2005.

Considered main topic in National Safety Strategy
Plan 2011-2020

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Promotion of shared space, safety campaigns for cyclists, enforcement & cooperation with municipalities andother stakeholders to develop cycling infrastructures and traffic calming measures.
Cycling and/or safety goals
50 percent growth by 2010 and 100 percent growth compared with 2005 by 2013 in terms of the length ofbicycle routes, separated from motor transport28

Denmark/Copenhagen
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

National Transport Strategy, 2009.

“Every accident is one too many” 2001-201229 ,City of Copenhagen has its own Cycle Policy 20022012.

Copenhagen Eco-Metropolis 2015 contains cycling
safety goals.

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Denmark: Cycling is a key area of the Danish road safety strategy together with speeding, alcohol and junction
treatment. 85% of accidents involve these factors. To make cycling safer, the plan focuses on campaigns andtraining and targets specific measures tested in cycling cities such as Odense. It also mentions cycle-path
networks and maintenance, traffic segregation, redesigning road junctions and safety equipment.
Copenhagen: Safer, continuous and green cycling network, parking facilities, better conditions in city,
combining cycling and public transport, improved signal junctions, better maintenance of cycling paths,
campaigns and information, use of helmets.
Cycling and/or safety goals
Denmark: No specific targets/goals for the national plan.
Copenhagen: From 2002 to 2012: Increase speed of 5 km cycle trips by 10%, increase cycling comfort: nomore than 5% of unsatisfactory opinion, increase work commute cycling up to 40% in 2012 and up to 50% in
2015, reduce the risk of being injured or killed by 50% in 2015, increase the perception of safety from 57 to
80% in 2015.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 85

FranceCycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

National Bicycle Plan (January, 2012) along with aninterministerial coordinator for cycling policy; “Mr.
Vélo”

No national safety plan. Safety policy is defined by the
Comité Interministériel de la Sécurité Routière(C.I.S.R.)30 and integrated in the “Code de la Rue”

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Integration of cycling in all aspects of road planning, facilitation of deployment of “complete” streets, 30km
zones (and extension of these) – contra-flow cycling to be allowed in these zones. Nearside (right) turn on red to
be allowed upon local initiative. Inclusion of active travel in National Health policies. Allowing cars to pass
cyclists under certain conditions in no passing zones, releasing the constraint that cyclists travel as far to thenearside as possible on certain shared streets. Including cycling in drivers licence education and increasing
cycling training for all (adults and children). Inventory of cycling infrastructure needs on National roads,
Cycling and/or safety goals
10% increase in cycling by 2020 (1% per year)

Germany
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

German National Cycling Plan 2002-2012. New planannounced for 2013-2020 (Nationaler
Radverkehrsplan 202031“2011 Road Safety Programme(Verkehrssicherheitsprogramm)32

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Enhance safer behaviour by and towards cyclists, safe cycling education for children, high visibility clothing for
cyclists as addition to safety devices for bicycles (e.g. reflectors), campaign for the use of helmets (“Ich trag
Helm”), research on the safety of pedelecs and extension of the cycle network. Promoting actions to avoid
dangerous situations via safe road design: avoiding conflicts in road design, arranging good visibility between
cyclists, pedestrians and motorised traffic.
Cycling and/or safety goals
The main goal is the promotion of cycling. Cycling is treated as a system (see National Cycling Plan). Increaseof cycling safety must be achieved while increasing cycling’s share of all traffic. Specific target is to double
cycling mode share to 15% of trips by 2020 (16% in urban areas and 13% elsewhere).Suggested spending on
bicycle infrastructure and programmes - €8-€19 per inhabitant.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

86 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

Italy
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

No national cycling plan. Cycling plans are being
developed at regional, provincial and local level.

The national plan for road safety (Piano Nazionaledella Sicurezza Stradale), 2002, is in its 3rd national
action plan (Programma nazionale di attuazione)
2008-2013.

There is a proposal, by FIAB (cyclists’ NGO of Italy),of a national cycling network (Rete ciclabile
nazionale) called Bicitalia.33
Main focus of cycling safety policy

Design protected locations for pedestrians and cyclists in urban areas with heavy traffic, awareness andinformation campaigns to encourage safer traffic behaviour with particular reference to motor vehicles, promotehelmet use and devices to increase the visibility of cyclists, promotion of voluntary agreements with
manufacturers for the definition of minimum standards of quality and safety of the bicycles 34
Cycling and/or safety goals
No national goals or targets

Japan
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

No national cycling plan. Guidance issued by the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism and National Police Authority for thedevelopment of cycling infrastructure (“Guidelines forcreating a safe and comfortable environment for
cyclists”, November 2012) -Cycling included in the 9th Traffic Safety Program for
2011-2015.

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Improve the road traffic environment, implement safety awareness, ensure vehicle safety and enforcement, cycle
safety education campaigns.
Cycling and/or safety goals
General goal: achieving the world’s safest road traffic by lowering the number of 24-hour fatalities to 3000 orless by 2015 and to lower the number of casualties to 700.000 or less by 2015.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 87

Korea
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

Cycling Promotion Plan along with Bicycle Network
Plan have been conducted by the Ministry of Public
Administration and Security (MOPAS)

National Bicycle Safety Plan issued by Ministry ofLand, Transport and Maritime Afairs (MLTM) isreflected in 7th National Transport Safety Plan for
2012-2016.

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Traffic accident investigation and management of crash hotspots involving cyclists, revision of guidelines forroad safety audits reflecting bicycle safety checks, bicycle policy audits, design of cycle tracks and lanes,
introduction of bike boxes along and dedicated cyclist traffic signalisation, developing legal framework forensuring right-of-way of cyclists in residential streets, downsizing speed-limit in built-ups to 50km/h, extensionof 30km-zones
Cycling and/or safety goals
General goal: 5% cycling mode share in 2013 (up from 1.2% in 2009), 20% mode share in 2020.
Reducing the severity of accidents involving cyclist and preventing probable accidents on National Bicycle
Network in the coming years.
Specific goal: cutting death toll of 333 cyclists (2010) down to 150 by 2016.

Netherlands
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

No national cycling plan35. Cycling policy isdecentralized with support from the National
government.36

Cycling is a specific area of emphasis in the Road
Safety Strategic Plan 2008-2020.

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Promotion of friendlier passenger cars for cyclist, ensuring safe crossing situations, required helmet for children,
national cycle teacher training school, information drivers’ blind spots and use lamps and reflectors.
Cycling and/or safety goals
General goal: reduce of 25% the number of road casualties.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

88 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

NorwayCycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

National Cycling Strategy as a component of the
National Transport Plan 2010-2019.

National Plan of Action for Road Safety: 2010-2013(conforming to the “Vision-Zero” strategy; a goal ofeliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries).

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Construction of new infrastructure (1.3 billion Kroner 2010-2013), quality inspections of existing infrastructure,
speed control, land-use rules – ensure cycling is addressed in urban planning via implementation of National
Planning and Building Act (2009), creation of working group to suggest policies to reduce cycling crashes,
cycling accidents, cyclist training (Children and adults), bicycle awareness included in motor vehicle licencetraining, Helmet awareness campaigns for adults (especially students), Road-sharing awareness-raising
campaigns,
Cycling and/or safety goals
Increase the share of bicycling in the transport system from 4–5 per cent in 2010 to 8 per cent by 2019.Public
Roads Administration target that 50 per cent of all towns with more than 5,000 inhabitants have a plan for aninterconnected network of bicycle paths by 2010. 80 % of children aged 6-15 walking or cycling to school by
2019.

PolandCycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

National authorities are preparing a national cycling
plan.

Integrated Road Safety Programme (GAMBIT) 2005
adopted as the 2005-2007-2013 National Road Safety
Programme.

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Development of cycling infrastructure network, campaigns to promote cycling as a popular and safe means oftransport, improving infrastructure legislation.
Protecting pedestrians and cyclists is one of the main targets of GAMBIT 2005.
Cycling and/or safety goals
General goal: to reduce deaths to 2,800 by 2013 (50% related to 2005) and 1,500 by 2020.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 89

Spain
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

No national cycling plan.

Cyclist considered as specific area of emphasis inRoad Safety Strategy 2011-2020.

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Cycling-related road safety education for children, promoting helmet, lamps and reflector use, improving traffic
signalisation for cyclists, maintenance of road hard shoulders, promoting cycle-friendly car driving, enhancing
the bicycle as a sustainable and efficient mode of transport.
Cycling and/or safety goals
Specific goal: Increasing the number of cyclist in one million in 2020 with no increase of cyclist fatalities rate.

United Kingdom
Cycling Strategy and planning policy

Road safety policy

Part of Local Transport strategy (e.g. Creating Growth
Cutting Carbon“ White paper 2011.

Strategic Framework for Road Safety, 2011.

Main focus of cycling safety policy
Improvement of infrastructure (including junctions), cycle training for children, promoting helmet use,
improving lorry vision, Cycling Stakeholder Forum, 20mph zones and limits, road safety campaigns.
Cycling and/or safety goals
No national targets

2.3

Laws and Regulations relating to Bicycle Safety

Rules and regulations governing the bicycles and their use are much less harmonised internationally(and in some cases, even within countries with separate regional transport jurisdictions) than motorised
vehicles. One possible explanation for this that most bicycle travel is local, or at least does not crossinternational boundaries contributing to less perceived need for a common and consistent legal
framework governing bicycle use. Of course, the same could be said for most car traffic (which is largely
composed of local/regional trips) giving some impetus to the notion that greater consistency in the legal
treatment of bicycles would be desirable. Despite the uneven regulatory landscape for cycling, a common“core” of rules does seem to emerge in many (but not all countries).
Road safety laws and regulations by national and regional authorities
Few countries have a standalone body of rules and regulations relating specifically to cycling safety,
unlike the bicycle-specific planning regimes mentioned in the previous section. Bicycle safety rules andregulations tend to be nested inside road safety strategies or may be linked to broader transport andmobility strategies.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

90 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

Some countries with a federal structure or other form of devolved governance have very basic
regulations at national level with more detailed regulations at the state or regional level. For example,
under Australia’s federal system of government, individual states and territories are primarily responsible
for policy, regulatory and administrative arrangements related to cycling. Road traffic regulations are
established at a state and territory level but most are based on nationally agreed ‘model’ regulations
known as the Australian Road Rules (ARR). These contain numerous specific rules related to bicyclists,
37
including a requirement for all cyclists on public roads to wear an approved bicycle helmet. . The
United States is similar in that is does not have a national traffic code. Instead, the Uniform Vehicle Code
(UVC) established by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) is
adopted by most States as the basis for their traffic laws. The Federal Highway Administration alsosuggests approaches and develops voluntary guidelines for States to adopt vis-à-vis cycling.
In some countries, cycling regulations are centralised at the national level, although regional andlocal levels also may have developed additional rules and regulations. This is the case of Austria,
Denmark, Poland and France.
In countries like Spain, road safety regulations are established at the national level although rules
related to the use of infrastructure are differentiated by territorial level of government. Rules relating to
the use of the road network by bicycles outside urban areas are set by the national government whereas
local authorities establish rules governing bicycle use inside urban areas.
Generally, laws relating to cycling and cycling safety fall in one of the following categories:
1. Vehicle design standards (for motor vehicles and bicycles)
2. Safety equipment (for motor vehicles and cyclists)
3. Traffic rules
4. Liability and Responsibility rules
Vehicle design standards (for motor vehicles and bicycles)
Many countries have developed or adopted rules relating to the safety of vehicles operating on
public roadways. Some countries have mandated specific safety design standards that seek to reduce theseverity of motor-vehicle – bicycle/pedestrian crashes. For example, both Europe and the United States
have or are developing stricter design standards for light-duty vehicle pedestrian/cyclist crash contact
points (hood/bonnet and bumper)38. In addition, EU Directive 2000/40/EC mandates front, rear and side
underrun protection for large trucks in order to avoid under-run incidents that are especially harmful for
cyclists. Japan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine all apply UNECE rule ECE-R93 which has similar
provisions. Other rules mandate the fitting (or retro-fitting) on trucks of blind spot mirrors or cameras to(EU Directive 2003/97/EC and EU Directive 2007/38). New pedestrian and cyclist detection
technologies are also under study and may complement existing approaches to cyclist fatalities due tonearside-turning trucks
Safety equipment (for motor vehicles and cyclists)
Countries surveyed typically have rules relating to mandatory safety equipment on bicycles.
Foremost among these are rules in many jurisdictions calling for two operating brakes39 Other typicalrules relate to the presence of forward, rear and pedal reflectors or lights and warning devices such as
bells (Netherlands). Countries surveyed typically have rules relating to the carriage of additional

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 91

passengers on bicycles designed for one person (usually limited to children under a certain age or weight)
and in some cases may limit the use of bicycle trailers.
As for cyclists, countries have issued rules relating to the use of reflective clothing and helmets. In
order to increase the conspicuity of cyclists riding at night, a number of jurisdictions mandate the use ofreflective clothing. These rules sometimes apply selectively to extra-urban areas alone or extend to riding
in tunnels or other low-visibility situations. Jurisdictions with rules on reflective clothing at night include
France (extra-urban), Hungary (extra-urban), Italy (extra-urban), Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and the State
of New Hampshire (US). Some local jurisdictions may also impose rules relating to the use of reflective
clothing by cyclists.
Most rules mandating the use of safety equipment for cyclists address the use of helmets. This is anarea fraught with controversy in a number of jurisdictions as the overall health impact of such rules areunclear. Mandatory helmet rules will, when followed, reduce the rate of cyclist head injuries in crashes
but may contribute to a significant erosion of overall health should they inhibit cycling and thus reducethe benefits derived from physical activity. We discuss these issues further in Chapter 5. Rules relating tohelmet use may apply only to certain age categories or to all riders. It is not clear that all helmet rules areequally enforced. As with rules for reflective clothing, many local jurisdictions may impose rules relating
to helmet use. National or regional-level jurisdictions with helmet use mandates include the following:
Jurisdictions mandating helmet use by all cyclists:AustraliaCanada (4 Provinces)

Dubai, United Arab Emirates



Finland (little enforcement)

Israel (compulsory on interurban roads)



New Zealand

Spain (all extra-urban cyclists except when very hot or on long climbs. Proposal to makemandatory for urban cyclists)

SloveniaSouth Africa (little enforcement)

Jurisdictions mandating helmet use by classes of cyclists (essentially children):Austria (<12 y. old)

Canada (2 Provinces, <18 y. old)

Croatia (<16 y. old)Czech Republic (<18 y. old)

Estonia (<16 y. old)

Iceland (<15 y. old)

Israel (<18 y. old)Japan (<13 y. old)

Republic of Korea (<13 y. old)

Slovak Republic (<15 y. old)CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

92 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

Sweden (<15 y. old)

United States (22 States have mandatory rules for children and youths of varying ages)

Some jurisdictions have or are in the process of reviewing rules on helmet use (e.g. Spain) and somejurisdictions have had rules mandating helmet use repealed (e.g. Mexico City, Israel). On balance,
however, most jurisdictions have seemed to be reluctant to mandate helmet use for adults. Many
jurisdictions, including those that do not have helmet use mandates, have undertaken helmet awarenesscampaigns and some officially recommend helmet use by all cyclists.
Traffic rules40
Most countries surveyed for this report view the bicycle as a road vehicle for the purposes ofnational traffic laws. Some countries have special provisions within their traffic codes relating to bicycles
and their operation in the road environment. In some instances, special rules may apply to the use of
bicycles on cycle-specific infrastructure.
Generally, bicycles are to circulate on the roadway though many countries impose limits on morethan one cyclist riding abreast. Because of concerns regarding bicycle-pedestrian crashes, many
jurisdictions do not allow bicycles to ride on sidewalks/pavements. In some cases, as in Japan,
sidewalk/pavement riding is unofficially tolerated in light of local practice. In a few instances, authorities
may have no explicit rules banning bicycles from sidewalks or pavements. Rules governing offside turns
typically stipulate that bicycles proceed as motor vehicles. One notable exception is Denmark where
cyclists are required to make a two-point manoeuvre by first riding through the junction to the far righthand side and then proceeding left when safe to do so (or under a green signal).
Rules relating to the mandatory use of bicycle facilities, especially when they run parallel to roads,
also differ. In some jurisdictions cyclists must use parallel cycle tracks if these meet agreed standards andare marked as compulsory (e.g. Australia, France, Germany, Korea, Netherlands, United States(Federally-managed roads with 30 mph or more speed limit, 7 States and many local ordinances, e.g.
New York City). In other cases, there is no obligation to use bicycle facilities when they are provided(though their use may be recommended).
Rules relating to right-of-way differ from country to country. In Europe, bicycles and pedestrians
have right of way over road traffic crossing pavement/sidewalks or cycle tracks with the exception ofFrance and Finland (in some cases). In all European countries save Portugal41, cyclists and pedestrians
engaged in crossing at signalised junctions have unconditional right of way over offside- or nearsideturning vehicles during the crossing cycle. In Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, Finland, Ireland,
Sweden and the United Kingdom, road users entering roundabouts must give way to cyclists engaged on
the roadway, cycle track or withdrawn cycle track42. The opposite is true in Belgium and Greece. In Italy
cyclist priority at roundabouts is indicated when applicable and in Portugal, cyclists never have priority
in roundabouts. Contra-flow cycling, when indicated, is allowed in Austria, Australia (local
jurisdictions), Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, the United States (local jurisdictions) and Italy. In
some cases, as in Belgium and in France, contraflow cycling is allowed by default in traffic calmed zones
unless otherwise indicated. Many countries define rules relating to the shared use of reserved bus lanes –Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the UK allow bicycles to use bus
lanes except otherwise indicated.
Some countries such as Belgium and France have recently modified their traffic codes to better take
into account cyclists and pedestrians. In the latter country, national authorities have established a new
body of traffic rules and regulations pertaining to the shared use of street space – the “Code de la Rue”.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 93

This code stipulates two new rules relating to cycling in France: first, the definition of “zones derencontre” or shared motorised-non-motorised roadspace with a maximum allowable speed of 20 km/hr(Figure 2.2), and second, the legalisation of contra-flow cycling in “zones de rencontre” and in trafficcalmed 30 km/hr zones. The introduction of these regulations in the “Code de la Rue” follows on
decisions of the Interministerial committee for road safety (Comité interministériel de la Sécurité
Routière - CISR) of February 2008 which came into force in July 2010. Other regulations addressing
43
cycling in the Code include, for example, bicycle traffic signalisation .
Figure 2.2 Shared roadspace “Zone de rencontre” in France (St. Germain-en-Laye)

Photo credit: Authors

Some countries and jurisdictions that already ban cell phone use while driving extend this ban tocyclists given that the latter are held to respect the same rules as operators of motor vehicles (e.g. inFrance, Germany). Some local jurisdictions have enacted similar bans (e.g. Chicago, California). In someinstances, cellphone use while cycling is allowed, or at least tolerated (e.g. The Netherlands). Even where
tolerated, cell phone use may contravene rules prohibiting hazardous road user behaviour at thediscretion of traffic authorities.
Some countries have put in place rules relating to the mandatory provision of infrastructure or
cycling policies – this is the case in France that has mandates to provide cycling infrastructure in urban
areas (1996 “LAURE” law on air quality and energy efficiency), cycling parking in car parks (2010
Urban Planning Law) and to develop the legislative framework for public bicycle schemes (Grenelle 2).
Many countries surveyed treat cycling while impaired the same as for motor vehicles. One
exception is Germany which has different blood alcohol limits for cyclists (0.16%) than for car drivers(0.05%). Jurisdictions that do not specify specific rules relating to cycling while impaired may have rules
stipulating that bicycles should not be operated in a hazardous manner which might encompass impaired
operation.
Finally, while not strictly a traffic rule, countries have different approaches to apportioning civil
liability for bicycle-motor vehicle crashes. In some instances, cyclist must prove they were not at fault ina crash whereas in other cases, a strict liability regime automatically assigns liability to the leastCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

94 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

vulnerable crash participant (the cyclist) in all cases, or in cases where the vulnerable road user was notin contravention of the law. Most EU countries (e.g. like the Netherlands) have in place some form ofstrict liability. Strict liability is not a crash prevention measure per se (since in most cases civil liability ishandled directly among insurers and drivers may not be aware of the existence or provisions of strict
liability regimes) but can be part of a pro-cycling regulatory framework.
Supra-national regulations
From the previous section, it is clear to see that the body of rules governing the use of bicycles andtheir safety are relatively diverse. In some instances, efforts have been made to develop general rules
relating to the technical homologation of bicycle design standards. This is the case of the bicycle safety
44
standards produced by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) .
For other aspects such as vehicle regulation and traffic rules, the Vienna Convention (1968)45, now
supplemented with the consolidated resolutions on road traffic46 and road signs and signals47 (2010),
offers a very basic framework, aimed at facilitating the "conditions for the admission of cycles tointernational traffic" but countries must complete it and may stipulate exceptions. For example, thetransport of passengers on bicycles is prohibited by the convention but country parties may authorise
exceptions as many do for the carriage of children. Nonetheless, many large countries are not signatoriesof the Vienna Convention and have developed a regulatory framework for bicycles that may be quite
different in some important aspects. Non-signatory nations include Australia, Canada, Japan and theUnited States. At least on a continental scale, efforts to better align rules governing cycling could benefit
safety in that a common, recognisable framework is established (e.g. the “recognisability” principle of
Sustainable Safety”.
2.4

National spending on cycling

Government spending on cycling may take place at different levels (national, regional, local) andmay encompass many expenditure categories (new infrastructure, maintenance and operation of existing
facilities, cycling education, cycling and safety awareness campaigns, etc.). There are also different
revenue sources for cycling and co-financing may extend to multiple partners.
Given the complexity of funding and expenditure streams, few countries have a clear view of total
government expenditure on cycling. One exemption is the Netherlands where total spending on cycling(all levels of government) reached €487 million in 2010, or about €30 per capita48.
At the national level, the German Federal Budget earmarked €100 million for the construction andmaintenance of cycle ways along federal roads and waterways in 2002 and similar amounts were
earmarked during the following years. In 2010, €110 million have been employed for this purpose andalso for projects to improve the integration with public transport and public bikes49. Promotion is also
addressed by the federal government with a fund of €3 Million for visible measures and campaigns,
research initiatives, informational measures, advanced and further training programmes, transport safety
improvement measures, general promotion of dialogue and dissemination of information on positive
impacts of cycling.50
Several other countries have announced national cycling budgets. These include Austria(approximately €100 million per year spent on infrastructure, promotion and safety), Australia (€60
million on infrastructure during 2009), Denmark (€140 Million to support cycling initiatives), the Czech
Republic (€30 million spent on cycling infrastructure between 2001-2010 and the United States ($1 andCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 95

$0.7 billion respectively in 2010 and 2011 on both bicycle and pedestrian projects, Federal spending
often matched at the State/local level).
In some cases, rules on financing bicycle infrastructure accompany national financing mechanisms.
This is the case in Italy with the national rules for financing cycling mobility (Norme per ilfinanziamento della mobilita' ciclistica, law 19th October 1998, no 366, G.U. n. 248 23 October 1998).
This law gives guidance instructions for cycling investments including provisions stating that abandoned
railways and river banks must be used for cycling paths, and that new local and distributor roads in urban
environments must be accompanied with a parallel cycle infrastructure.
In light of recent economic downturns, some countries like Australia and Spain have included
cycling in stimulus packages or jobs strategy funding. In Australia the Federal government has set aside€30 million in 2010 for the construction of bike paths under the National Bike Path Projects componentof National Jobs Fund local jobs initiative51. As for Spain, the National Fund for Local Investment,
aiming to improve urban areas, dedicated €380 Million from the total €8 Billion (8.000 Million) tosustainable mobility, including cycling facilities52.
Regional and local budgets
In countries where policies are decentralised, funds for cycling are allocated at the regional level, as
is the case in Belgium. In the Brussels-capital region there is a budget of €11 million per year to be spentin infrastructure from 2011 on, up from €4.5 million per year on average from 2005-2009. In addition,
the region also spends €500000 annually on bicycle promotion and education. The other two Belgian
regions spend strongly divergent amounts on cycling: the Walloon region spends €10 million annually ininfrastructure (exclusive of subsidies for communal projects) whereas the Flemish region spends €60
million annually since 2006.
The bulk of funds spent on cycle infrastructure is programmed and spent at the local level. The mostrecent National Bicycle Strategy for Germany (Nationaler Radverkehrsplan 2012) suggests that percapita spending on cycling at the local and regional level should be in the range of €8 to €19 per capita(€6 to €15 on investment, maintenance and operations, €1 to €2.5 on parking and €0.5 to €2 on
communications and promotion). The spread in spending estimates accounts for different starting points.
Germany presents a case of derived budget where cycling could be included. Within the frameworkof the Local Authority Transport Infrastructure Financing Act, the Federal Government uses about €1.7
billion per year from the mineral oil tax revenue to promote investment in the improvement of transport
infrastructure in municipalities. Although cycle tracks are not explicitly referred to in the Act as being
eligible for funding, the construction or maintenance of cycle infrastructure is nevertheless permissible.
Besides this, the fact that the Federal Budget has earmarked significant funds at the national level for
construction and maintenance of cycle ways since serves to generate spending on cycling at other levelsof government.
At the city level, some leading cities dedicate an important budget to cycling: Copenhagen invests
about €30 million annually on cycling infrastructures. Other cities invest much less; Warsaw (1.716.855
inhabitants) invested €1.7 million in cycling infrastructures during 2010, and there is an estimated budgetof €4 million on building the city-bike programme around the city. In Spain, the city of Zaragoza(675.121 inhabitants) invested €3,2 million in 2010. Main items included are: cycle paths, on-street
parking, communication campaigns, information and services centre and a survey.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

96 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

Cycling’s proportion of overall transport budgets is still very small: for example, it is less than 1%of the UK national transport budget, whilst in the City of London (7,825.200 inhabitants), cycling
accounts for only 0.45 per cent of the €155 million transport budget, amounting to around €700.00053.

Key messagesNational-level commitment, or at a minimum, regional-level commitment, is important in setting theright legal, regulatory and financial framework so that successful implementation of cycling
strategies can take place.



Not all countries address cycling safety at the national level but those that do either establish plans
focusing on improving bicycle (or road) safety specifically or plans addressing transport, spatial,
environmental and health planning more generally. The first approach is more direct though thesecond approach may impact the cycling environment and thus indirectly impact safety.

The principal objectives of cycling-related plans of countries surveyed for this report are:oto increase the number of people cyclingoto improve safety and security awareness when cyclingoto balance cycling speed and comfort

Cycling is impacted by and in turn impacts a number of other government policies e.g. health andland-use alongside transport. In addition to developing national plans, some administrations assign aperson or institution responsibility for coordinating cycling policy across all of government. This
practice has the benefit of ensuring consistent policy action in favour of cycling.



One key area for national policy is to set up the regulatory framework surrounding traffic rules formotorists, cyclists and for urban space. This allows for consistent treatment of cyclists in the traffic
environment.



Authorities in many high-cycling countries/regions ensure that all citizens (not just cyclists) receive
adequate training regarding cycling skills and, crucially, rules relating to the use of cycling
infrastructure and governing the interaction between cyclists and motorised traffic at junctions andother points of conflict.



Most countries surveyed for this report view the bicycle as a road vehicle for the purposes of nationaltraffic laws. Some countries have special provisions within their traffic codes relating to bicycles andtheir operation in the road environment or, in some instances, statutorily define specific traffic
environments that favour the use of bicycles and walking.



While the overall share of national and regional budgets is relatively small, high-cycling jurisdictions
spend more per capita on infrastructure and operations.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 97

Notes

1.

Mobility here refers widely to the different categories found in the references: transport, traffic,
alternative modes.

2.

ECMT (2004)

3.

http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/, accessed July 18,. 20124.

http://www.austroads.com.au/abc/, accessed September 23, 20135.

http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-Monsieur-Velo-et-ses-partenaires-.html, accessed
September 23, 20136.

http://www.nationaler-radverkehrsplan.de/en/transferstelle/downloads/cye_o-01_national-cyclingplan.pdf, accessed July 18,. 20127.

See recent UK study, as an example of the economic revenues that cycling can have at national
level: http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/press_releases/2011/the_british_cycling_economy,accessed September 23, 20138.

For a complete definition see OCDE (1998), pp. 9 and 10.

9.

http://www.crow.nl/nl/Publicaties/publicatiedetail?code=REC25, accessed July 18, 2012

10. DECRETO MINISTERIALE 30 novembre 1999, n. 557. Regolamento recante norme per ladefinizione delle caratteristiche tecniche delle piste ciclabili (G.U. n. 225, 26 settembre 2000, Serie
Generale)
11. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-Mission-nationale-des-veloroutes-.html, accessed July18, 2013
12. http://www.ffe.es/principal.asp, accessed July 18, 201213. http://www.veiligverkeernederland.nl/verkeersexamen, accessed July 18, 201314. http://www.brevetducycliste.be/, accessed September 23, 201315. http://www.dft.gov.uk/bikeability/, accessed September 23, 201316. http://radlust.info/en/index.html, accessed September 23, 201317. http://www.signaal.org/files/1%20Folder%20Alle%20regels%20rondom%20spiegels.pdf, accessed
September 23, 2013CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

98 – 2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY

18. http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Blind_spot_crashes.pdf, accessed September 23,
2013
19. http://www.fahrradakademie.de/konzept/index.phtml, accessed September 23, 2013
20. http://www.cyclingresourcecentre.org.au/, accessed September 23, 201321. http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/, accessed September 23, 201322. http://www.fietsberaad.nl/, accessed September 23, 2013
23. http://www.swov.nl/, accessed September 23, 201324. http://www.cdv.cz/en/, accessed 23 September, 201325. http://ww.cyklostrategie.cz/, accessed 23 September 23, 201326. http://www.austroads.com.au/documents/AP-C85-10.pdf, accessed July 18, 201227. http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/files/NRSS_2011_2020_20May11.pdf, accessed July 18,
2013
28. http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/facts/factsheets_waste/fs_scp/pdf/showcase_czech, accessed 23
September 23, 201329. http://www.trm.dk/graphics/synkron-library/trafikministeriet/publikationer/pdf_uk/003.pdf,
accessed 23 September 201330 http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/article.php3?id_article=3525, accessed 18 July, 2012
31. http://www.bmvbs.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/UI/fahrradverkehr-nationaler-radverkehrsplan.html,
accessed September 23, 2013.
32. http://www.verkehrssicherheitsprogramme.de/, accessed September 23, 201333. http://www.bicitalia.org/cakebi/, accessed September 23, 201334. http://www.arcss.it/progetti/piano_nazionale.pdf, accessed July 18, 2013
35. Last planning document dates from 1999 “The Dutch Bicycle Masterplan” accessible at:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/The%20Dutch%20Bicycle%20Master%20Pl
an%201999.pdf, accessed July 18, 2012
36. For more information, see “Cycling in the Netherlands”, 2009, accessible at:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf, accessed
September 23, 2013
37. From the policy questionnaire

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

2. POLICY MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR BICYCLE SAFETY – 99

38. Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 631/2009 on the type-approvalof motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users andthe US NHTSA-proposed amendments to the Global Technical Regulations affecting the hood andbumper areas of light vehicles to reduce injuries and fatalities to struck pedestrians.
39 Fixed gear bicycles, now gaining popularity in many areas, may not conform to these laws if they do
not have at least one brake (the fixed gear serving as the second brake).
40 Traffic rules relating to cyclists in Europe are drawn from (TiS.PT 2004).
41 In Portugal, cyclists and pedestrians never have priority unless otherwise indicated.
42 And in Germany, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, road users
exiting a roundabout must give way to cyclists whereas in Belgium, Spain, Greece and France, theopposite is true.
43 L’Instruction Interministérielle sur la Signalisation Routière (ISSR), 2009.
44 http://www.cen.eu, accessed September 23, 201345 http://live.unece.org/trans/conventn/legalinst.html, accessed September 23, 201346. http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/roadsafe/publications/docs/Consolidated_Resolution_
on%20Road_Traffic_RE1_e.pdf, accessed September 233, 201347. http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/roadsafe/publications/docs/Consolidated_Resolution_
on%20Road_Traffic_RE2_e.pdf, accessed 23 September, 2013
48. Official response by Minister Eurlings (Letter VenW/ DGMo-2010/2849):
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/reactie_atsma2.pdf, accessed September 23,
2013
49. http://www.bmvbs.de/SharedDocs/DE/Pressemitteilungen/2010/246-bomba-eurobike.html, accessed
September 23, 2013
50. http://www.nationaler-radverkehrsplan.de/en/transferstelle/downloads/cye_o-01_national-cyclingplan.ppt, accessed September 23, 201351. http://www.regional.gov.au/regional/national_bike_path.aspx, accessed September 23, 201352. http://www.mpt.gob.es/prensa/Documentos/Libro-FEIL/document_es/documento.pdf, accessed July18, 2012
53. http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/press_releases/2011/the_british_cycling_economy,accessed September 23, 2013CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 100

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 101

3. Analysis of international trends in bicycle use and cyclist safety

This Chapter reviews trends relating to cycling safety as reported and vetted by ITF members via aquestionnaire. This information is complemented by different national and regional sources of
information. Trends relating to fatalities, injuries and crash rates are presented alongsideinternational data on levels of cycling. Where possible, exposure-adjusted safety figures are given
and some of the underlying factors contributing to observed trends are discussed.
3.1

Introduction and methodology

This chapter is intended to highlight international trends in bicycle use and cyclist safety. To that
end, members of the International Transport Forum/OECD Joint Transport Research Centre and otherselected countries were asked to fill out a questionnaire in September 2010 relating to three overall
themes:Road accidents involving cyclists



Bicycle use

Existing cycling infrastructure

The collected data provided WG members with up-to-date and validated information from
responding countries. The aim of this chapter being to analyse international trends, the collected data
concern aggregate national level data and do not consider sometimes significant local differences (urban
vs. rural). In some instances, questionnaire data has been complemented by other sources as noted in the
text.
Countries participating in the Working Group on Cycling Safety and/or the International Traffic
Safety Data and Analysis Group (IRTAD) were specially targeted because of the known quality andcommon methodological practices in relation to the collection of road safety data (Table 3.1.).
Table 3.1. Selected Countries for Review (shaded = no response)
Australia

Denmark

Hungary

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

Austria

Finland

IcelandJapan

NorwaySwedenBelgium

France

India

Korea

PolandCanadaGermany

Ireland

Malaysia

Portugal

Czech Republic

GreeceIsraelNetherlands

Slovenia

Switzerland
UnitedKingdom
United StatesCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

102 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Twenty-three out of the thirty countries filled in available data and returned the questionnaire, i.e. a
response rate of 77 %. The responding countries were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States.
One thing that stood out from all responses was the lack of data on bicycle use. As noted earlier, thiscompromises any assessment of cycling safety. The data on road accidents involving cyclists andexisting cycling infrastructure were fairly complete and could be used for a more detailed analysis.
3.2

Terms and definitions

For a correct understanding and interpretation of this analysis of international trends in bicycle use
and cyclist safety, readers need some essential information on the data collected and dealt with in thecontext of the present report.
Safety variables and their definition may differ from one country to another. For some terms aninternationally agreed definition exists, for others not. For instance, a road fatality is internationallydefined as a person who died in a traffic crash, within 30 days of the crash, whereas seriously injured
may be defined quite differently in various countries. In France, a person is considered seriously injured
when hospitalized for more than 24 h1. In Hungary, the term is referred to as bone fracture, dislocation ofa joint, injury of a cavity of the body (skull, chest, abdomen) or injury of vessels, tendon or nerves, whichtake longer than 8 days to heal. In Austria, the difference is even greater since they define a seriously
injured person as a person suffering an injury which entails an inability to work or personal difficulty formore than 24 days. Table 3.2 presents an overview of the definitions of injured person in IRTAD
countries.
In view of obtaining comparable data, terms and definitions were specified in the survey
questionnaire. However, it would seem that many countries most likely transmitted data based on theirnational definitions nonetheless. Therefore, this chapter mostly describes and compares trends, rather
than presenting absolute figures.
3.3Road crashes involving cyclists

The relatively high response rate (78 %)2 on questions with regard to road accidents involving
cyclists allows us to discern certain trends and make comparisons between different countries in terms of
the evolution of the absolute number of recorded injury-causing road crashes involving cyclists (Figure3.1). In addition to questionnaire responses, IRTAD3 data for 1970-2008 from the respondent countries(except Australia) was used in order to refine those trends as was data from the CARE 4 database forcountries in Europe and from the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) database for the USA.
For all countries represented in Figure 3.1, the overall evolution (black line) of recorded injury
crashes involving cyclists is relatively constant since 2000, with a slightly downward trend since 2005.
However, this trend is quite different from one country to another. There is a near-constant decrease in
the Netherlands, Poland and Denmark since 2000 (approximately 50 % less), whereas the number ofrecorded injury bicycle crashes has increased significantly in Spain and New Zealand, though the mostrecent figures for New Zealand show a break in the trend. Two thirds of the countries report a lower or
equal number of recorded injury bicycle crashes in 2009 compared to 20005. What this figure does notreveal is whether the trends displayed are linked to changes in the safety of cycling or a changes in thenumber of cyclists travelling or volume of bicycle travel. Since Figure 3.1 shows the evolution of allrecorded bicycle injuries, it says little about the impact of under-reporting of non-fatal crashes in theobserved trend.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 103

Table 3.2 Road injuries – ITF-EUROSTAT-UNECE definition and application in IRTAD countries

Lesser wound(minor cuts andbruises)

Attempted
suicidesInability to work

Hospitalisation

Hospitalisationor serious
injuries

Inability to work

Other thanseriously Injured

Slightly
InjuredRequires medical
treatment

Seriously Injured

All injured road
users including
death >30 days

InjuredITF-EurostatUNECE
classification

Yes

Yes

No

No

..

>24 hrs

..

..

Yes

Australia

..

..

..

..

..

Admitted

..

..

..

Austria

Yes

Yes

No

No

..

..

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

..

Yes

Canada

Yes

Yes

No

No

..
..

..
..

a

Belgium..
>24 hrs>24 hrs

..

..

Yes

Czech Republic

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

..

..

Yes

..

Yes

..

Denmark

Yes

Yes

No

No

..

Yes

Yes

..

No

Yes

..

> 1 day

Yes
..

..

Finland..

..

France

Yes

..

..

..

..

> 24 hrs

..

..

Yes

Germany

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

..

> 24 hrs

..

..

Yes

Great Britain

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

..

..

Yes

..

Yes

Greece

Yes

..

Yes

No

..

> 24 hrs

..

..

..

Hungary

Yes

Yes

No

No

..

..

Yes

..

Yes

Iceland

Yes

..

..

..

..

..

..

Ireland

Yes

..
Yes

..

No

No

..

..

..

Yes

Israel

Yes

Yes

Yes

..

..

> 24 hrs

Yes
..

..

..

Italy

Yes

..

..

..

..

..

..

Japan

Yes

..
Yes

..

No

No

..

..

..

..

Yes

Netherlands

Yes

Yes

No

..

..

> 1 night

..

..

Yes

..

New Zealand

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

> 7 days

Yes
..

..

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Poland

..
Yes

..

..

..

Slovenia

Yes

Yes

Yes

..

> 24 hrs

..

..

Yes

Spain

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

..
..

> 24 hrs

..

..

Yes

Sweden

Yes

Yes

No

No

..

..

..

..

Yes

Switzerland

Yes

Yes

..

..

..

..

..

> 24 hrs

Yes

United Statesb

Yes

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

a

Inability to work or health problem > 24 days
The United States employs the KABCO scale (K=Killed, A= Incapacitating injury, B= Non-incapacitating injury, C= Possible injury, O=
no injury and U=Injured, severity unknown)b

Source: (IRTAD 2012).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

104 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Figure 3.1 Evolution of all recorded injury bicycle crashes 2000-2009, selected countries, 2000=1
Increasing crash numbers

Decreasing crash numbers

Belgium

Austria

The Netherlands

1.18
2000

2005

2009

0.92
2000

2005

2009

Denmark

Germany

2000

2005

2009

0.50

Poland1.03

1 2 3 4 52005
6 7 8 92009
10

2000

New Zealand

1.42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2000

2005

France2009

1 2 3 4 52005
6 7 8 92009
10
2000

0.49

Portugal

0.56

0.95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2000

2005

2009

1.67

Spain

1 2 3 4 52005
6 7 8 92009
10
2000
0.74

Greece1 2 3 4 52005
6 7 8 92009
10

2000

Sweden0.97

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2000

2005

2009

1 2 3 4 52005
6 7 8 92009
102000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2000

2005

2009

0.72

Hungary

Switzerland

United States

1.02

0.99

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 52005
6 7 8 92009
10
2000

2000

2005

2009

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2000

2005

2009

0.96

Japan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

United Kingdom
0.90

0.83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 52005
6 7 8 92009
10
2000

Canada

Total

2000

2005

2009

Source: Questionnaire responses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 102005 0.91 20092000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2000

2005

2009

0.91

Figure 3.2 displays the evolution of serious and fatal bicycle crashes for a subset of European
countries reporting 2000 to 2009 bicycle crash statistics to the CARE road safety database6. All countries
reporting data on bicycle fatalities from 2000-2009 have either stabilised or decreased their number.
Some countries, however, report an increase in the number of serious injury bicycle crashes7. Romania
and Slovenia). Twelve of the sixteen countries in Figure 3.2 have reduced cyclist fatalities at a greaterrate than seriously injured cyclists from 2000 to 2009, highlighting that the reducing the latter remains aserious and persistent road safety challenge. This is especially the case as serious injury bicycle crashes
are not adequately captured by police reporting mechanisms and are therefore under-reported.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 105

Figure 3.2 Evolution of recorded serious injury and fatal bicycle crashes 2000-2009,selected countries reporting to CARE database, 2000=1
Increasing serious
injury crashes

Belgium

GreeceSerious Injuries
Deaths

2000

0.8
1.5

France

2005

2000

2005

20090.7

killed (2000): 134
seriously injured (2000): 974

20090.6

killed (2000): 270
seriously injured (2000): 1024

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Czech Republic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Romania
2000

2005

0.6

2009

1.0
2005

0.6

0.7
2000

2005

2009

2000

2005

2009

0.4

0.5

killed (2000): 22
seriously injured (2000): 64

killed (2000): 56
seriously injured (2000): 159

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ireland

Spain
1.0

1.3
2000

Portugal2005

20090.7

0.6

2009

2000

2005

2009

0.7

0.4

killed (2000): 151
seriously injured (2000): 669

killed (2000): 10
seriously injured (2000): 49

killed (2000): 84
seriously injured (2000): 475

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Denmark

Netherlands

Swedenkilled (2000): 157
seriously injured (2000): 361

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Slovenia

2000

1.1
2000

2005

2009

2000

2005

0.6

2009

0.7

2000

2005

0.8

2009

0.4

killed (2000): 26
seriously injured (2000): 172

2000

2005

0.6

2009

0.7
0.4

killed (2000): 58
seriously injured (2000): 802

killed (2000): 198
seriously injured (2000): 2263

killed (2000): 47
seriously injured (2000): 468

1 2 3 4 5serious
6 7 8 injury
9 10 crashes
Decreasing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Austria

Germany

PolandUnited Kingdom

2000

2000

2005

2009

1.0

0.9

0.9
2000

2000

2005

2009

0.6

0.7

killed (2000): 62
seriously injured (2000): 1851

killed (2000): 659
seriously injured (2000): 15586

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2005

2009

0.5
0.5

killed (2000): 692
seriously injured (2000): 2073

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 102005

20090.8

killed (2000): 131
seriously injured (2000): 2697

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Source: Questionnaire responses

The Netherlands provides an interesting example of the evolution of fatal and serious injury crashes,
not least of which because they collect and report data aggregated from police and hospital records
giving a more precise view of the evolution of injury and fatal bicycle crashes – and of the scale ofunder-reporting in the case of serious injuries (Figure 3.3). For the period 2000-2009, police-recorded
crash data shows a decrease of approximately 27% in fatal bicycle crashes and a 26% drop in serious
injury crashes. In contrast, estimates of actual (police and hospital recorded) deaths show a lower
decrease in deaths (17%) and, crucially, a significant increase in serious injuries (+35%) over the same
period. Dutch data shows that the 60-69 year old age category has had the strongest rise in actual deaths
and serious injuries over this period. Most other age categories have seen a decrease in actual deaths
whereas all age categories have seen an increase in actual serious injuries.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

106 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Figure 3.3 Actual vs. Registered number of fatalities (30 days) and serious injuries (MAIS 2+)
in the Netherlands 2000-2009 (3 year rolling average)
Cyclist fatalities (3 yr. average)

224

Cyclist serious injuries* (3 yr. average)
9824

195

185
7276

143

1958

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1458

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
* MAIS2 +Source: Netherlands Road Safety database, SWOV

Figure 3.4 displays the percentage of fatal bicycle crashes compared to overall traffic deaths for arange of countries based on CARE and FARS data. These percentages are likely linked to cycling
participation (e.g. high participation in the Netherlands leads to a high share of cyclist fatalities in overall
traffic deaths, low participation in Greece leads to the opposite) and it is difficult to say conclusively
whether cycling is actually safer in some countries than in others based on this data. In some cases, a low
percentage may indicate that cycling is, or is perceived to be, less safe than other modes thus reducing
participation and resulting in a smaller share of overall fatalities. What is perhaps more revealing is thatthe share of cycling fatalities gravitates around 5-8% in a number of (European) countries.

*

1.3%

1.6%

2.0%

2.1%

3.2%

3.5%

3.9%

4.8%

5.8%

6.1%

6.2%

6.5%

6.6%

6.6%

6.8%

7.0%

7.7%

7.9%

8.1%

8.4%

8.9%

9.4%

10.1%

11.1%

11.5%

12.0%

21.7%

Figure 3.4 Share of bicycle crash fatalities in overall traffic crash fatalities for selected European countries

2005-2010, except for Croatia2007-2010, Estonia 2005-2009, Netherlands 2005-2009, Sweden 2005-2009 and Switzerland 2008-2010
2005-2011**

Source: EU* CARE database and USA** FARS database

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 107

Figure 3.5 Percent change in all recorded injury crashes compared to % change in recorded bicycle
injury crashes, 2000-2009*, selected countries% Change bicycle injury crashes

50%
Spain (-13%, 67%)

40%

30%

Action required to reduce bicycle crash risk
20%

New Zealand

Belgium

10%
Germany

Switzerland% Change all injury crashes

0%
-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

United States

0%

10%

Hungary

20%

30%

40%

50%

Sweden-10%

Portugal
CanadaAction desirable to reduce relative
bicycle crash risk

UK

Cycling crashes increase, total crashes increase

-20%

Japan

Cycling crashes increase, total crashes decrease

Austria

Cycling crashes decrease less than total crashes

France-30%

GreeceCycling crashes decrease, total crashes increase

Neth.

Cycling crashes decrease, total crashes decrease-40%

PolandDenmark (-43%, -51%)-50%* Except for Sweden (between 2003 and 2009) and 2000 and 2007

Source: Questionnaire responses

50%

40%
New Zealand

30%

Action required to reduce bicycle crash risk
20%

Canada% Change bicycle injury crashes

Figure 3.6 Percent change in all recorded serious and fatal injury crashes compared to % change inrecorded serious and fatal bicycle injury crashes, 2000-2009*, selected countries

10%% Change all injury crashes

Spain

-50%

UK

-40%

0%
-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

FranceBelgium

Action desirable to reduce relative
bicycle crash risk

-10%

Germany
Austria
Hungary
Neth.

-20%

Cycling crashes increase, total crashes increase
Cycling crashes increase, total crashes decrease
Cycling crashes decrease less than total crashes-30%

Denmark

Greece (-50%, -52%)-40%

Poland-50%* Except for Sweden (between 2003 and 2009) and 2000 and 2007

Source: Questionnaire responses

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

Cycling crashes decrease, total crashes increase
Cycling crashes decrease, total crashes decrease

SwedenPortugal (-62%,-39%)

108 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

It may be useful to compare national trends in bicycle crash numbers with trends in overall roadtraffic crash numbers to detect possible divergences and, hence, the need to adapt road safety policy.
Figure 3.5 compares the evolution of all overall personal injury road crashes and that of personal injury
bicycle crashes. In a general way, and with the exception of Sweden, Poland, Denmark and, to a lesser
extent, also Hungary, the evolution of overall personal road accidents shows a more positive trend thanfor personal injury bicycle accidents.
A relatively large group of countries have seen the number of all road crashes decrease at a greaterrate than bicycle injury road crashes and a few (Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain) have seen
the number of all injury crashes decrease while bicycle injury crashes have increased. This is also thecase of Korea (not shown on the graph) where all traffic fatal fatalities have decreased by 3.4% per year
on average from 2003 to 2009, while bicycle fatalities have increased by 4.8% per year over the same
period. These findings suggest that most countries should intensify efforts to reduce the number ofbicycle crashes and improve cyclist safety. The greater the divergence between all injury crash trends andbicycle injury crash trends signals a need for special targeting of safety policy (e.g. Spain, Belgium). Thisis true even in cases where both trends show a reduction in absolute number of crashes since it signalsthat cyclists are benefitting less from overall safety improvements that are reducing overall crash rates.
Figure 3.7 Cycle crash severity: Ratio of recorded serious injury and fatal bicycle crashes toall recorded bicycle crashes (3 year average)
Denmark

57%

France36%

Hungary

33%

Poland33%

Netherlands

32%

Austria30%

Greece21%

New Zealand21%

Germany

19%

Spain

17%

UK

16%

Sweden16%

United States

14%

Belgium
Portugal
Canada13%
10%8%

Source: Questionnaire responses

These results may be biased when accounting for underlying changes in exposure and when underrecording of bicycle crashes is not stable and varies annually. Without information on these variables, wecannot be certain if Figure 3.5 provides an accurate representation of trends. One way to reduce possible
bias is to constrain the analysis to only serious and fatal injury classes as these have lower documented
under-recording rates as described in Chapter 1. Figure 3.6 only takes into account accidents involving
fatalities and seriously injured cyclists and shows some differences to the trends represented in Figure
3.5, notably with only two countries showing a rise in recorded serious or fatal bicycle injury numbers

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 109

from 2000 to 2009 (Canada and New Zealand). Overall, with the exception of some countries, trends arequite similar with those shown in Figure 3.5, e.g. they are more positive for overall road crashes than forbicycle crashes. This confirms that in many countries, efforts to reduce all road crashes are outstripping
efforts to reduce bicycle crashes and that there is a need to intensify efforts to reduce the number offatalities and seriously injured in bicycle crashes. Again, stronger efforts seem justified wherediscrepancies in observed trends are largest -- e.g. Spain (27 %), New Zealand (30 %) and the United
Kingdom (22 %). Results may still be biased, however, when data provided was based on differingdefinitions of “serious” injuries.
Crash severity is another important indicator of cyclist safety. Crash severity is defined as the ratioof the number of recorded fatalities and seriously injured in bicycle crashes to the total number ofrecorded bicycle crashes. The severity of bicycle crashes (Figure 3.7) varies strongly from one country toanother. In Canada, the crash severity ratio is rather low (8 %), while it is very high in Denmark (57 %).
In the latter more than half of recorded cyclist crashes result in seriously injured persons or fatalities. A
major reason for that high figure as compared with other countries is that a lot of injury crashes with only
slight injuries are not recorded in Denmark, either because they are not registered by the police at all or
because they are not categorized as injury crashes. The average crash severity ratio for all 16 respondent
countries is 23.5 % or nearly one out of four recorded crashes. That high figure may in part be explainedby the vulnerability of cyclists. In a car crash, the vehicle partly absorbs the crash impact, whereas acyclist’s body absorbs almost all of the kinetic crash forces.
Distribution of cyclist fatalities by age group is another way to interpret cycle crash statistics. In
general, as seen in Figure 3.8, the distribution of cyclist traffic fatalities by age group is quite similar for
most countries. It follows a u-shaped curve with a local maximum in victims below 15 years old(especially, 10-15 years old when many youths are venturing autonomously into road environments) andan even greater spike in fatalities among those 65 years and older. In many countries, fatalities increase
with age starting in the mid-20s.
Some countries display a flatter distribution than others – this is the case for Australia (and New
Zealand, not shown here), Greece, the United Kingdom and USA. Generally those over 65 years old
represent a significantly large proportion of cyclist fatalities. A clear over-representation of those over 65
years old is apparent in Japan whereas in Italy, the age groups over 25 years old are proportionally more
important than in most other countries. One explanation for the over-representation of the elderly in fatal
cycle crashes is the more severe consequences of crashes due to the sometimes lessoned physicalcondition of many older people. In particular the combination of more brittle bones, less elastic soft
tissue weakened locomotive functions including reaction times results in more crashes for this populationgroup and more severe crash outcomes (Wegman and Aarts 2006). For children, a combination of factors
may be at play: a greater propensity to expose themselves to crash risk and the location of crash contact
points between motor vehicles and their bodies (head and upper body).
In most countries, fatal bicycle crashes largely concern male cyclists (Figure 3.8). In countries
where utilitarian cycling is widespread (e.g. Denmark, Belgium, Finland, Germany), a more balanced
distribution of fatal crashes among genders can be observed – most likely reflecting greater female
cycling rates.
It is difficult to reach conclusive findings on the relationship between age (or gender) and fatal
bicycle crashes without robust data on bicycling participation rates among different demographic
segments and, as noted throughout this report, this data is often lacking thus complicating the task ofbicycle safety analysis.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013110 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Figure 3.8 Distribution of recorded cyclist fatalities by age group (2000-2010), selected countries1
Austria

Francefemale: 32%
male:68%

under 15: 4%
over 65 : 44%22%
15% 16%

10% 10%4%

Belgium

4% 7%

10%

14%

18%

3%

9%
4% 6% 2%

female: 30%
male: 70%

under 15: 11%
over 65 : 49%25%
19% 20%
3% 4%

8%

8%

4%

Croatia

11% 13%
2% 5%

1%

14%

Denmark

4%

4%

9% 10%

13%

7%

3%

3% 4% 2%

2%

Ireland

Estonia
female: 27%
male: 73%

under 15: 10%
over 65 : 39%12%2% 4% 4% 2%

14%

3% 2%

0%

% female: 35%% male: 65%

female: 20%
male: 80%

under 15: 4%
over 65 : 50%

25% 23%
9%

5%

4% 3%

Australia

9% 10% 7%

13%

15%

9%

11%

7%

female: 19%
male: 81%

under 15: 8%
over 65 : 40%

15%

11%

13% 13%
8% 8%

2%

1%

3%

6%

17% 16%
9%

7%

United Kingdom
female: 6%
male: 94%

under 15: 6%
over 65 : 30%

6% 5%
3%

10%

15%

under 15: 13%
over 65 : 16%

female: 17%
male: 83%

4% 4% 3%8%

11% 12%

13% 11%

11%

21%
6%

63%

14% 16%
9%

8%
7% 5%
3%

1%

USA
female: 13%
male: 87%

under 15: 14%
over 65 : 11%

under 15: 5%
over 65 : 63%

21% 19%19% 17%
11%
5%

A B C D E F G H

7%

I

2%

J

5% 5%

4%
2% 3%

14% 12%

10% 8%

16% 14% 17%7%5% 7% 7%A B C D E F G H
female: 17%
male: 83%

under 15: 7%
over 65 : 27%
16%

8%

Japan*
female: 13%
male: 87%

19%
10%

1%

21% 23%16%

under 15: 9%
over 65 : 10%

11% 13%

Slovak Republic

Italy

1%

5% 8%

21%

10% 12%

7% 8% 7%

Finland4%

3% 3% 5%

Switzerland
female: 9%
male: 89%

under 15: 5%
over 65 : 35%

20%

17%

16%

9%

6%

27%

22%
10%

under 15: 9%
over 65 : 53%

20% 20%Romania
female: 19%
male: 80%

under 15: 17%
over 65 : 17%

female: 33%
male: 67%

under 15: 6%
over 65 : 47%

20%
10%

12% 10%
2%

15%
2%

21%
10%

8%

9%

15%

3%

16%

15%

10%

19%
8%

7%

Portugal
female: 18%
male: 82%

under 15: 3%
over 65 : 33%
25%

18%
7% 8%

4%

5% 7%

8% 9% 6%

Sweden14%
8%

Hungary
female: 35%
male: 65%

6%

female: 21%
male: 79%

under 15: 5%
over 65 : 37%

15%

11%

female: 8%
male: 92%

under 15: 8%
over 65 : 25%
14% 16% 14%

8% 9% 7%

Poland

14% 14%11%

2%

under 15: 2%
over 65 : 10%

2% 4%

4%

20%

16%
10%

5%

4%

24%

female: 9%
male: 91%

under 15: 14%
over 65 : 27%

11%

6%

Spain

19%

11% 10%7%

14%

6% 7% 5% 7%female: 40%
male: 60%

23%

20%
12%

8%

17%
11%
0%

20%

Greecefemale: 19%
male: 59%

under 15: 3%
over 65 : 40%

3%

7% 6%

11%

Netherlands

under 15: 7%
over 65 : 49%14%

10% 9%

female: 18%
male: 82%

under 15: 6%
over 65 : 28%20%

18% 19%

15%

10%

Germany
female: 33%
male: 67%

under 15: 10%
over 65 : 43%

Slovenia
female: 13%
male: 83%

under 15: 4%
over 65 : 31%

25%
18%

8%

4% 6% 3% 5%

Latviafemale: 19%
male: 81%

under 15: 10%
over 65 : 36%

I

2%

J

A = less than 15 y/o
B = 16-24 y/o
C = 25-29 y/o
D = 30-39 y/o
E = 40-49 y/o
F = 50-59 y/o
G = 60-64y/o
H = 65-74 y/o
I = 75-84 y/o
J = +85 y/o

12%
5%

6% 7%

0% 0%

A B C D E F G H

3%

I

1%

J

* Japan: all 65+ y/o = 63%, no data on
gender1
Australia (2005-2012), Croatia(2007-2010), Estonia (2005-2009),
Netherlands (2005-2009), Sweden(2005-2009), Switzerland(2008-2010),

Source: Questionnaire responses

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 111

3.4

Exposure data: Bicycle use

Only eight out of the twenty-three respondent countries could provide some data on the level ofbicycle use or travel. We have, where possible, complemented this information with official statistics on
bicycle usage (or other sources) where available. Nonetheless, this is a small sample and thus does not
represent a firm basis for a broad scale interpretation of international trends.
Note: As noted in Chapter 1, relatively few countries collect and report exposure data at the national level. For instance,
for this report only 9 countries were found with national data on distance travelled by bicycle or number of trips taken bybicycle. National statistics on shared bicycle schemes is lacking as well and few countries are able to produce statistics on
bicycle ownership per capita or mode shares. Those that do collect distance- or trip-based bicycle data typically do so via(relatively expensive) national mobility or travel surveys. Data on exposure may be more available (and relatively less expensive
to collect) at the local level – though aggregating this data in a useful way could benefit from a common reporting framework.

The evolution of the cycling modal share in passenger transport seems relatively constant over aten-year period in countries where cycling is well-developed – perhaps indicating a relative saturationlevel for this mode. The Netherlands and Denmark report a stabilisation of bicycle mode share forpassenger kilometres travelled at around 8% for the former (and 25% of all trips) and 4% for the latter.
Some countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom report an increase in mode share in
the past 5 years, though from a low starting point (1% and 2%, respectively).
The comparability of aggregate modes shares derived from travel surveys should be approachedwith caution as many countries or surveys employ different methodologies for defining a “trip” (e.g. doesit include only the dominant leg of a multi-modal trip? Does trip refer to one leg or a return segment as
well?). National-level mode shares also hide great local variability – e.g. while the reported bicycle modeshare for all of Denmark was 3.6% in 2009, cycling mode share in Copenhagen was several orders ofmagnitude greater.
In 2010, The European Commission conducted a survey among a representative sample of EU
citizens that included the question “What main mode of transport do you use on a daily basis?”(Gallup2011) Figure 3.9 shows self-reported levels of cycling as compared to the Netherlands (which reported
the highest level of cycling in the survey). According to survey responses, a number of countries display
relatively high levels of daily cycling on the order of 40-50% of the levels achieved in the Netherlands.
Many, but not all, “high cycling” countries have deployed extensive networks of bicycle facilities.
Figure 3.9 Daily cycling mode shares in Europe 2010, compared to the Netherlands (Netherlands=100%)
100%61% 61%
55%
42% 42% 42%

32%

29%

26% 26%23% 23% 23%
16% 16% 16% 16%
10% 10% 10%

Source: (Gallup 2011)CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

6%

6%

6%

6%

6%

112 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Urban bicycle share
Figure 3.10 displays travel-survey derived mode shares for major urban agglomerations on threecontinents. Despite the caveat that these travel surveys also have various methodological differences that
render precise comparison challenging, the figure underscores the fact that not all cities are equallybicycle friendly or have comparable rates of cycling. There are many reasons for this. On the one hand,large Asian cities (e.g. in India and China) display elevated cycling and walking mode shares largely
because these modes remain the most affordable (and sometimes practical) transport option for many
inhabitants. Most cyclists in these cities ride not out of choice but out of necessity (see Annex 2). With
increased incomes, these shares will likely decrease as cyclists turn to public transport or private motor
vehicles. China, unlike India, has historically developed and retained significant bicycle infrastructurethat is still used today (though this infrastructure is now shared with electric bicycles).
Figure 3.10 Cycling mode share (% of all trips) in selected major cities from travel surveys
60

60

Europe (>1M)

Asia (>1M)

40

40
32

50

31

50

30

12

12

Hamburg, DE

Koln, DE

14

13

1

1

1

1

1

1

Bucharest, RO

Stockholm, SE

Warszawa, PL

Budapest, HU

Sofia, BG

Marseille, FR

1

1

Lisbon, PT

2

1

Lille, FR

Barcelona, BE

Madrid, ES

2

2

Lyon, FR

2

2

Seville, ES

Brussels, BE

2

Athens, GR

Valencia, ES

3

2

Paris, FR

Vienna, AT

London, UK

65Strasbourg (Bas-Rhin), FR

1

4

5

6

7

9

10

9

11

10

10

11

13

12

14

14

17

20
16

17

19

20

18

19

21

21

25

28

30

Munich, DE

Beijing, CN*
Patna, IN
Nagpur, IN
Amritsar, IN
Agra, IN
Guwahati, IN
Kanpur, IN
Trivandrum, IN
Madurai, IN
Varanasi, IN, IN
Surat, IN
Ahmedabad, IN
Tokyo, JPJaipur, IN
Delhi, IN
Kolkata, IN
Pune, IN
Shanghai, CN*
Chennai, IN
Hyderabad, IN
Bangalore, IN
Mumbai, IN
Kochi, IN
Taipei, CH. Taipei
Singapore, SI

Berlin, DE

0

0

60

Europe (500k-1M)
50

Walking mode share
40

31

Cycling mode share (%)

1

1

1

Saint-Étienne, FR

Nice, FR

Vilnius, LT

1

1

Tarragona, ES

1

Sheffield, UK

1

1

Toulon, FR

1

Kraków, PL

Rouen-Elbeuf, FR

Málaga, ES

1

1

2

Gdańsk, PL

Torino, IT

2

Edinburgh, UK

Leeds, UK3

23

Grenoble, FR

Essen, DE

3

Bordeaux, FR

Poznań, PL

4

Wroclaw, PL

5

5

5

Toulouse, FR

Stuttgart, DE

7

10

9

11

10

10

11

11

13

Duisburg, DE

Frankfurt, DE

13

Hannover, DEDüsseldorf, DE

13Frankfurt am Main, DE

16

Dresden, DE

14

16

20

Rotterdam, NL

19

23

22

25

30

Oslo, NO

Helsinki, FI

Dortmund, DE

Gothenburg, SE

Nürnberg, DE

Thessaloniki, GR

Leipzig, DE

Den Haag, NL

Antwerp, BE

Amsterdam, NL

Bremen, DE

Copenhagen, DK

0

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 113(Figure 3.10 cont.)
60.0
Walking mode share

USA (>-1M)

Cycling mode share (%)
50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Richmond, VA

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA

Oklahoma City, OK
Rochester, NY

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH

Kansas City, MO-KS

St. Louis, MO-IL

0.6

0.7

0.6

Raleigh-Cary, NC

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA

0.7

Baltimore-Towson, MD

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN

0.8

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH

Birmingham-Hoover, AL

1.0

0.9

San Antonio, TX

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

1.0

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX

0.8

1.1

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA

0.8

1.1

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA

Pittsburgh, PA

1.1

Jacksonville, FL

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

1.1

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

0.9

1.1

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

0.9

1.1

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FLRiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA

1.1

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI

1.1

1.1

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC

1.3

1.2

1.3

Austin-Round Rock, TX

1.3

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA

Salt Lake City, UT
Orlando-Kissimmee, FL

1.4

1.4

Columbus, OH

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WACharlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC

1.5

1.5

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA

1.6

1.6

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO

1.7

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

1.8

1.8

Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

2.0

2.0

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT

2.3

2.1

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI

10.0

0.0

* Beijing includes electric bicycle and pedelecs in its mode share calculation, Shanghai does not (and estimates that electricbicycle/pedelec mode share is 10%, for a combine bicycle and electric bicycle/pedelec mode share of 20%)
Sources: Beijing (Beijing Transport Yearbook, 2005), Shanghai (Shanghai Construction and Transport Commission, 2009),
Singapore (Travel Survey 2011, Land Transport Authority), Taipei (“Analysis of Taiwan Transport Modes”, MOTC, 2009),
Indian Cities (Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, Ministry of Urban
Development, 2008), Europe (Various travel surveys as inventoried by EPOMM TEMs tool: http://www.epomm.eu/tems,
accessed December 15, 2012), USA (CBSA Extract from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey)

Many “high-cycling” European cities have deployed a wide range of pro-cycling measures that haveallowed them to retain and even expand the use of the bicycle in recent years – this is the case of
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and several other Dutch and German cities. Other cities have sought to increase
cycling, albeit from low numbers (such as London and Paris). The United States displays significantly
lower cycling shares though the urban agglomerations selected here (Core Based Statistical Areas –CBSAs – from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey) may hide city-level cycling activity. For
example, the Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton CBSA has a 1.5% bicycle mode share (all trips) whereas
the City of Portland reports 5.8% bicycle use for work trips.
Trend in bicycle travel
Data collected for this report indicate a slight but constant increase the number of kilometrestravelled by inhabitant in many countries with the exception of Korea which reports stronger than
average growth (Figure 3.11). The United States shares the same rate of growth as Germany despitemuch lower absolute distances travelled per inhabitant (368 km/inh./yr for Germany in 2008 and 47

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

114 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

km/inh./yr. in the USA). In countries displaying high volumes of bicycle travel (Netherlands andDenmark) there is a trend towards stabilisation while Switzerland reports a decline.
Figure 3.11 Kilometres travelled by bicycle per capita: Average yearly rate of change 2000-2009
9.5%

3.4%

3.4%
1.2%

1.1%

-0.2%
-2.1%

Source: Questionnaire responses

Figure 3.12 Bicycle travel per inhabitant per year (km) and number of cyclists killed per billion kilometres ofbicycle travel (averages 2006-2009 or indicated years)
Bicycle travel per inhabitant per year (km)Cyclists killed per billion km of bicycle travel/year travel per inhabitant per year (km)
44.0

864

32.5
27.0

513
368

14.6
10.7

15.2

18.4
261

28.1

20.0
267
196
88

75

47

Source: Questionnaire responses

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 115

Figure 3.12 compares bicycle travel per inhabitant per year to the number of cyclist fatalities per
billion kilometres of (bicycle) travel. It suggests that countries with relatively high levels of cycling per
inhabitant register relatively lower fatal crash rates – an illustration of the “safety in numbers”
phenomenon discussed in Section 1.2 though this figure does not resolve the uncertainty regarding either
causality or directionality of the effect. Korea seems to not fit the pattern with a higher number of fatal
cycling crashes than the amount of daily travel by bicycle would suggest. One possible explanation could
be the rapid increase in cyclists numbers illustrated in Figure 3.11 – neither cyclists nor other transportparticipants have had time to assimilate each other’s’ presence in the traffic environment.
The evolution of fatal or severe injury crash risk per kilometre of travel can also be tracked incountries reporting bicycle travel volumes. In Denmark, the risk of death or serious injury to cyclists per
kilometre of travel has dropped by about 40% over 10 years8 (Figure 3.14). Bicycle travel has remained
essentially stable over the same period. In the city of Copenhagen, bicycle travel has increased by 20%
from 1996 to 2010 while at the same time police-reported fatalities and serious injuries have dropped by
70% (Figure 3.13). These findings are significant and, in the context of the expansion of well-designed
bicycle facilities over the same period, indicate that targeted policies can simultaneously increase cycling
and safety.
Figure 3.13 Index of bicycle travel and per-kilometre cyclist casualties for Copenhagen (Police-reported,
1996-2010) and kilometres of cycling infrastructure.
Bicycle kilometres travel (weekday)
1.2
1.0

Cyclist serious injuries
and fatalities per km

0.3

Cycling tracks

Cycling lanes

Green cycle routes
397

411

338
1998

388

323
1996

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

348

367

380

Source: City of Copenhagen

Nonetheless, such findings, especially for severe and slight injuries, may be somewhat tempered bycrash under-reporting. In the Netherlands both the risk of death or serious injury per kilometre of bicycle
travel has decreased by about 30% from 2000 to 2009 when looking at official police-reported statistics.
However, combined police and hospital records paint a different picture with risk of death per kilometreof bicycle travel decreasing less (-20%) and, critically, risk of serious injury per kilometre of bicycle
travel increasing by 20% from 2000 to 2009 (Figure 3.14).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

116 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Figure 3.14 Index of bicycle travel, and per kilometre cyclist casualties (3-year rolling average) for Denmark(Police-reported, 2000-2010) and the Netherlands (Police and hospital reported2000-2009)
Bicycle kilometres travel

Seriously injured cyclists per km (MAIS2+)
1.2

Bicycle kilometres travel
1.0

1.1

1.0

1.0
0.8

Cyclist fatalities per km

0.6
Cyclist fatalities per km
Seriously injured cyclists per km

Denmark (Police reported)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Netherlands, Actual (Hospital+police reported)

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: City of Copenhagen, SWOV Road Safety database

Bicycle ownership
Most countries report less than 1 bicycle per inhabitant, even those with high cycling use such as the
Netherlands. This means that not all inhabitants have a bicycle (it should also be taken into account thatsome may have more than one bicycle). On average, the number of bicycles per inhabitant is higher inGermany than in the Netherlands, while in the latter country bicycle use is higher. This may indicate ahigh level of sports bicycle usage (less daily use) in the former and more utilitarian bicycle use in thelatter.
3.5

Cycling infrastructureThis report adopts the following functional categorisation of cycling infrastructure (See Glossary at
front of report for a break-down of these into sub-categories):Separate Linear Infrastructure;

Mixed Linear Infrastructure;Point Infrastructure.

Countries were asked to indicate the presence of each of these types of cycling infrastructure on
their territory and to indicate since when as a way of gauging the maturity of bicycle infrastructure
networks. Nineteen respondents could indicate the presence of various bicycle facility types but only
thirteen could give an estimate of their first implementation. Four countries (Australia, Japan, New
Zealand and Portugal) did not provide information on either point. A related question asked for thelength of the bicycle network by type of facility but too few countries provided data to allow for anadequate analysis of that aspect.
Respondents were asked to validate the analysis based on this input in order to avoid errors inrecording and interpreting data.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 117

Separate Linear Infrastructure in OECD/ITF member states
Table 3.3 gives an overview of the types of separate linear infrastructure implemented in eighteen
respondent countries, as well as of the date of appearance (when available).
Table 3.3 Presence of separate linear bicycle infrastructure (date implementation if known)
Cycle Track

Greenway

Cycle Lane

Combined
cyclepedestrian track

Austria

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (1990)

Yes (<1970)

Belgium

Yes (<1970)

Yes (2000)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (2004)

Canada

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Czech Republic

Yes (1980)

Yes (2000)

Yes (2005)

Yes (1980)

Denmark

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (1980)

Yes (<1970)

FranceYes (<1970)

Yes (2004)

Yes (<1970)**

Germany

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (1990)

Yes* (<1970)

Greece

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Hungary

Yes (1975)

Yes (1990)

Yes (1997)

Yes (1984)

Israel

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Italy

Yes (1970)

Yes (1990)

Yes (1990)

Yes (1990)

Korea

Yes (1990)

Yes (2000)

Yes (2000)

Yes (1990)

Netherlands

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

No

Poland

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Spain

Yes (2008)

Yes (1990)

Yes (2000)

Yes (2004)

SwedenYes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Switzerland

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

UK

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

United States

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

* Only for mixed cycle-pedestrian track** Only for separated cycle-pedestrian track.

With the exception of combined cycle-pedestrian track in France (where it is a mixed cyclepedestrian track) and the Netherlands, the four types of separate linear infrastructure are applied in all of
the countries responding to the survey. The major reason for France not having any combined cyclepedestrian tracks are the potential risks for incidents between cyclists and pedestrians, especially when
they are partially sighted. Combined cycle-pedestrian tracks have never been seriously considered in the
Netherlands, mostly because the high numbers of cyclists do not allow for such a combined use.
As for the date of first implementation, countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden,
Austria, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Italy started constructing specific cycling infrastructure in
the 1970s and before, as opposed to Spain and to a lesser extent also Korea9.
When comparing the date of appearance of specific cycling infrastructure with the number of injury
accidents involving at least one cyclist, we note a similar trend. Indeed, in the Netherlands, Sweden,

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

118 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Austria, United Kingdom and Denmark the number of such accidents is lower than average, whereas it
significantly exceeds the average (and continues to grow) in Spain. We observe that the more separate
linear cycling infrastructure that exists in a given country, the fewer recorded injury accidents involving
at least one cyclist. The date of appearance of separate linear cycling infrastructure (and of course also its
quality) seems therefore to be correlated to bicycle safety. There is some research evidence that, at leastat the micro-level, road users (motorists and cyclists) adapt their behaviour over time in the presence of
new cycling infrastructure leading to a clear and sustained reduction in conflict events and an increase inyielding events on the part of motorists (Phillips, et al. 2011). Whether or not this phenomena still holds
at the level of regional or national cycle infrastructure networks is unclear and worth further exploring.
Mixed Linear Infrastructure OECD/ITF member states
Table 3.4 gives an overview of the types of mixed linear infrastructure applied in the eighteen
respondent countries, as well as of the date of appearance (when available).
The situation is quite different among the responding countries with countries such as Belgium, theNetherlands, Germany, Canada and France implementing mixed cycling-car infrastructure, whereas thisinfrastructure does not appear in Greece, Israel, and Korea.
Table 3.4 Presence of mixed linear bicycle infrastructure (date implementation if known)
Country

Suggested cycle
lane

Centrallane

AustriaNo

Belgiumtraffic

Cycle street

Combined buscycle lane

Contra-flow
cycling

YesNo

Yes (<1970)

Yes (1990)

Yes (2000)

Being tested

Yes (2012)

Yes (2006)

Yes (1991)

Canada

Yes

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Czech Republic

No

-

No

Yes (2009)

Yes (2005)

DenmarkNo

No

Yes (1980)

Yes (1980)

FranceYes (2000)

Being tested

Yes (2008)

Yes (2005)

Yes (1983)

Germany

Yes (2000)

Yes

Yes (2000)

Yes (1990)

Yes (2000)

Greece

No

-

No

No

No

Hungary

Yes (2010)-

No

Yes (2001)

Yes (2001)

Israel

No

-

No

No

No

Italy

No

-

No

Yes (2000)

No

Korea

No

-

No

No

No

Netherlands

Yes (<1970)

Yes

Yes (2000)

No

Yes (<1970)

Poland

No

-

No

Yes

No

Spain

Yes (2000)-*

No

Yes (2008)

Yes (2008)

SwedenYes (<1970)-

No

Yes (<1970)

No

Switzerland

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

UK

Yes (<1970)

Yes

No

Yes (<1970)

Yes (1990)

United States

Yes

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

* No data collected on this type of infrastructure for all countriesCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 119

Point infrastructure in OECD/ITF member states
Table 3.5 gives an overview of the types of point infrastructure that are applied in the eighteen
respondent countries, as well as the date of their appearance (when available). With the exception ofAustria, Greece, Israel and Korea, most of the respondent countries implement some or all types of point
infrastructure. However, there does not seem to be one predominant type.
Generally speaking, point infrastructure has appeared more recently than linear infrastructure in all
countries, except for Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. As for cyclist safety,
there is no marked correlation between having point infrastructure or not and aggregate national-level
accident data.
Table 3.5 Presence of point bicycle infrastructure (date of first implementation if known)
Country

Cyclist signals

Cycle box or advanced stop line

AustriaNo

No

Belgium

Yes (<1970)

Yes (2000)

CanadaYes

No

Czech Republic

Yes (1990)

Yes (2007)

Denmark

Yes (1980)

Yes (2007)

FranceYes (<1970)

Yes (1998)

Germany

Yes (1990)

Yes (1980)

GreeceNo

No

Hungary

Yes (1975)

Yes (2001)

Israel

No

No

Italy

Yes (1980)

No

Korea

No

No

Netherlands

Yes (<1970)

Yes (1990)

Poland

Yes

No

Spain

Yes (2000)

Yes (2008)

SwedenYes (<1970)

Yes (<1970)

Switzerland

Yes

Yes

UK

Yes (1980)

Yes (1980)

United States

Yes

Yes

Two-way cycle tracks
In section 3.4, cycling infrastructure that may cause incidents between cyclists and pedestrians was
examined. In addition, possible bi-directional cycling infrastructure that may cause incidents between
cyclists had to be addressed. Although very few countries could provide data on that matter, a list of suchtypes of cycling infrastructure could be drawn up.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

120 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Cycle Track or Separated Cycle Lane
In order to avoid incidents between cyclists and motorised vehicles at crossroads, this type of
cycling infrastructure along roads is preferably one-way. By way of exception, they may be conceived as
two-way tracks on no built-up roads in Belgium, Denmark, Canada, Japan, Italy, the Czech Republic,
etc., principally to avoid too many detours and to make the bicycle network more direct and attractive. In
some cases, road marking (broken line, directional arrow + bike logo, etc.) is used as a means ofseparation.
Greenway
Since this type of cycle track follows its own path, away from road networks, most countries(Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Germany, etc.) allow two-way cycle traffic. This is often indicated bymeans of road marking at the beginning and the end of a greenway section.
Combined cycle-pedestrian track
Some countries (Belgium, Hungary, Germany, etc.) allow two-way cycling traffic on the cycling
part of combined cycle-pedestrian tracks. In that case, the cycling part must be clearly separated from thepedestrian part by means of special road marking (e.g. white line), different surfacing material or aphysical separation.
Two-way cycling traffic is also possible on a cycle street or in case of contra-flow cycling.
However, the separation is then provided by the vehicle lanes.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY – 121

Key Messages

While there is convergence in many countries towards common terminology and definitions for injury
severity, important differences remain that may cloud cross-country analysis of trends – greater convergencealong the lines of terminology defined by IRTAD would simplify safety analysis.



Two thirds of the countries responding to our survey report fewer bicycle injury crashes in 2009 than in2000 though relatively few countries show a deep and constant improvement. What is not clear is the extent
to which these trends are linked to changes in the safety of cycling or changes in the volume of travel bybicycle. The role of under-reporting may also bias findings based on non-fatal crashes.

Non-fatal crash under-reporting may hide the true scale of traffic injuries for cyclists and in some cases may
even mislead authorities on the direction of traffic safety improvements for cyclists. Combining policerecorded and hospital data can better inform progress on bicycle safety.



While most countries report a decrease in both injury and fatal bicycle crashes, in most countries thedecrease of bicycle injury and fatal crashes is lower than the decrease in overall injury and fatal crashes. The
safety performance of cycling continues to lag behind overall transport safety performance.



On average, one out of 4 recorded bicycle injury crashes in responding categories was categorised as severeor fatal. This number is indicative of risk but is also fraught with uncertainty given data limitations andwide-spread and inconsistent under-recording of all bicycle crashes.

The distribution of cyclist traffic fatalities by age group is quite similar for most countries and follows a ushaped curve age with spike in victims under 15 years old and an even greater spike in fatalities among those
65 years and older. The latter represent a significant number of overall casualties warranting special
attention in many countries.

Countries and (even more so) cities display widely different cycling mode shares across the world. Cycling
mode shares in many large Asian and medium-sized North European cities are above 10% of all trips
whereas in many large European and North American cities, cycling mode shares are much lower. This islinked to income (in Asia) and to pro-active policies in northern Europe.



Data collected for this report indicate a slight but constant increase the number of kilometres travelled byinhabitant in many countries with the exception of Korea which reports stronger than average growth. In
high-cycling countries, the mode share for bicycles may be reaching a plateau.



For countries reporting both bicycle travel per inhabitant and bicycle crash data, a clear relationship can beobserved between higher levels of cycling and lower recorded fatal crash rates – “safety in numbers” isobservable but no causal relationship can be ascertained from the data.



Most countries have adopted and implemented most of the forms of linear bicycle facilities outlined in thisreport. Implementation of mixed bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure is less common as is implementation ofvarious forms of point bicycle infrastructure which, in addition, has been implemented more recently in mostcountries. Data on density and network length for bicycle infrastructure was not ascertained.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013122 – 3. ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN BICYCLE USE AND CYCLING SAFETY

Notes

1.

ITF – Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties – IRTAD – December 20112.

No questionnaire data available for Australia, Czech Republic, Israel, Italy and Korea.

3.

International Traffic Safety Data & Analysis Group (IRTAD), Road Safety 2009, Annual
Report,pp237

4.

EU Community Road Accident Database (CARE), covering EU member countries and associatestates.

5.

From 2003 onwards for Sweden

6.

EU Community Road Accident Database (CARE), covering EU member countries and associatestates, provides detailed incident-level crash information for 15 211 cyclist deaths (registered up to
30 days after the crash) and169 283 seriously injured cyclists (recorded up to 30 days after thecrash)).

7.

The noticeable jump in serious injuries reported by France is due to a change in reporting
methodology. Up to 2004, crash victims hospitalised more than six days were considered seriously
injured. In 2005, this threshold has shortened to 24 hours or more.

8.

The risk of slight injury has fallen by about 60% over the same period.

9.

Korea’s expansion of bicycle infrastructure has been especially rapid. The country’s bicycle
infrastructure has grown from 120 kms in 1995 to 189 km of on road bicycle lanes, 1427 km of
separated bicycle paths and 9770 km of mixed bicycle/pedestrian paths. (Wee, et al. 2012), (Shin2011).

References

Gallup. “Future of transport.” Flash Eurobarometer Report. European Commission, 2011.
IRTAD. “Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties: Combining different data sources to improveunderstanding of non-fatal road traffic crashes.” Paris: OECD/International Transport Forum,2012.
Wegman, F., and L. Aarts. “Advancing Sustainable Safety.” Leidschendam: SWOV Institute for Road
Safety Research, 2006.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 123

4. Overview of bicycle crash characteristics in selected countries

This chapter presents detailed analysis of bicycle crash characteristics across a range of countries based on adetailed questionnaire and other sources of national information. It provides an up-to-date comparison offactors relating to bicycle crashes among responding countries and discusses the policy implications thatemerge.

4.1

Introduction and methodology

The present chapter aims to present the characteristics of crashes involving bicycles in selected
countries. An understanding of crash characteristics can assist with the design and targeting of policies
and interventions to conditions in particular countries.
This chapter is based on several sources of information. The first is a detailed questionnaire sent to
all Working Group members (See Annex A). Most questionnaire data was reported at the national level
though some exceptions concerning Australia, France and Poland are noted in Annex A. We received
more complete questionnaire data for the year range (2005-2009) than for the most recent year (2010).
More complete data were available for fatal crashes than for injury crashes.
In addition to questionnaire responses, bicycle crash data from both the EU Community Road
Accident Database (CARE) for EU member countries and associate states and from the US National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) were used.
Together, CARE and FARS provide detailed incident-level crash information for 20 888 cyclist traffic
deaths1 (15 211 in CARE and 5 677 in FARS) occurring in the years 2005-2010 in Europe and 20052011 in the USA.
US FARS data concerns only fatal crashes involving a motor vehicle travelling on a publicly open
roadway and resulting in the death of a person (vehicle occupant or non-motorist). As such, FARS data
does not report fatal bicycle crashes that do not involve a motor vehicle (bicycle-bicycle, bicyclepedestrian or single bicycle crashes or falls) and therefore under-reports all bicycle crash deaths by an
unknown, but likely small, margin.
CARE also provides incident-level details for 169 283 cyclists seriously injured (e.g. where victims
were injured and hospitalised at least 24 hours) as a result of a road traffic crash. CARE data on seriously
injured cyclists is not as reliable as data on cyclists’ traffic deaths as there may be discrepancies among
countries in recording “serious injuries” despite a harmonised definition within the CARE database. As
such, data on seriously injured cyclists is not consistent and comparisons of one country’s safety
performance with another’s’ should be interpreted with caution.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013124 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Additional data sources included the United Kingdom’s Road Accident and Safety database forincident-level details for fatal bicycle crashes in the UK as well as data from Australia’s Bureau ofInfrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics and from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. We
also received input from the Korean Transportation Safety Authority – this data is included in thediscussion of the questionnaire results where appropriate. Detailed findings from crash microanalysis in
Korea are presented in Box 4.2.
Our analysis is based on crash and victim numbers, because most countries do not have reliable
exposure information with which to calculate rates. Population-based rates are not very useful, given thevastly different cycling participation levels and patterns in different countries, as discussed in Chapters 1
and 3. Because our main concern is to consider crash patterns, and to compare these across countries, inalmost all cases we present our data in terms of the percentage of all cycle crashes or cycle crash victims
represented by each level of each characteristic. In some cases we present bicycle crash data as apercentage of cycle crash victims to total traffic crash victims in order to highlight the relative share ofcycle crashes for selected characteristic. This accounts to some extent for cycling exposure per se. It does
not account for exposure to different levels of each characteristic, so that, for example, the greatest
proportion of bicycle crashes occur during the day simply because more cycling occurs during the day.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of designing and targeting policy and interventions, arguably what is
important is that greatest proportion of bicycle crashes occur during a day (even if this is due toexposure).
Crashes were police-reported for all respondent countries as well as for CARE and FARS data. As
noted in Chapter 1, bicycle crash and injury under-reporting is the norm in many countries. Further,many crashes are not recorded either in police-reported or hospitalisation data. The likelihood of
inclusion in official records increases with injury severity, and so the data can be considered to be mostaccurate for fatal crashes. For this reason, we treat fatal and serious injury crashes separately in sections
4.2 and 4.3.
4.2

Fatal crashes

When do fatal bicycle crashes occur?
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 display a heatmap of monthly and weekly patterns of fatal bicycle crashes (interms of actual number of fatal bicycle crashes) in Europe and the United States over the most recent fiveto six years. Several things stand out from the figures and the underlying data.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 125

Figure 4.1 Cyclist traffic fatalities by month or day of week and by time of day, EU, 2005-2010
European Cyclist Deaths by Month/Day of Week and Hour 2005-2010 (n=12554)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

Jan 7
Feb 0
Mar 5
Apr 8
May 16
Jun 13
Jul 20Aug 20
Sep 10
Oct 9
Nov 6
Dec 2

2

5

5

11

35

44

33

28

46

34

34

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
26

31

40

51

79

58

33

29

20

7

16

4

4

3

5

15

19

41

26

35

29

34

30

42

35

37

32

63

51

21

17

12

8

3

3

5

6

15

15

24

56

41

35

45

37

32

38

47

58

41

49

72

46

19

16

14

9

2

9

3

6

18

21

36

35

56

58

57

56

68

66

66

75

68

52

41

54

42

28

23

5

9

4

1

13

16

39

45

83

73

66

61

66

86

92

88

74

64

54

40

55

47

24

16

16

9

6

13

25

36

56

66

106

73

69

64

68

86

75

89

67

63

47

41

61

36

27

12

16

14

24

36

46

78

102

93

88

75

86

85

92

88

92

82

79

61

62

61

52

24

8

7

4

11

39

48

57

74

95

90

81

81

93

83

82

92

97

72

73

79

53

23

19

4

6

5

32

38

50

79

69

76

84

71

60

81

96

99

101

78

86

91

61

45

21

6
4

2

1

7

26

57

59

59

60

70

65

71

58

81

82

111

92

98

116

73

38

35

18

5

3

17

15

55

38

44

54

53

48

49

49

49

66

94

123

93

47

38

20

13

7

6

3

3

5

16

37

39

39

32

37

44

27

35

49

67

72

85

50

53

38

24

17

12

5

1%

As a percentage of total road traffic deaths
Jan 2%
Feb 0%
Mar 1%
Apr 2%
May 3%Jun 2%
Jul 3%
Aug 3%
Sep 2%
Oct 2%
Nov 1%
Dec 0%

Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun

1%

2%

1%

3%

6%

6%

5%

5%

8%

7%

5%

4%

5%

6%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

3%

2%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

3%

8%

5%

7%

6%

7%

6%

7%

6%

5%

4%

7%

5%

3%

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

9%

8%

6%

8%

6%

5%

5%

6%

7%

5%

6%

7%

5%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

2%

5%

4%

7%

7%

10% 10%

9%

8%

9%

8%

7%

8%

7%

6%

5%

6%

5%

4%

4%

1%

2%

1%

0%

3%

3%

7%

8%

13% 10%

9%

8%

8%

9%

9%

9%

7%

7%

6%

5%

7%

6%

4%

3%

3%

2%

1%

3%

5%

6%

8%

10% 15% 10%

8%

8%

8%

9%

7%

8%

6%

7%

6%

5%

8%

5%

5%

2%

3%

2%

4%

5%

6%

10% 12% 12% 10%

9%

9%

9%

8%

8%

8%

8%

7%

7%

8%

6%

7%

4%

1%

1%

1%

2%

6%

7%

9%

11%

10%

9%

10%

8%

8%

8%

9%

7%

7%

7%

6%

3%

3%

1%

1%

1%

6%

6%

7%

11%

10% 11%

11%

9%

7%

9%

10%

9%

9%

8%

8%

8%

6%

6%

3%

1%

0%

0%

2%

5%

7%

7%

8%

9%

9%

9%

9%

7%

9%

9%

10%

8%

8%

8%

6%

5%

5%

3%

1%

12% 11%

1%

1%

5%

3%

9%

6%

7%

9%

9%

7%

8%

7%

6%

9%

9%

7%

6%

4%

4%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

5%

5%

6%

6%

7%

5%

5%

7%

9%

6%

6%

3%

5%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 1113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

17

6

10

7

36

74

90

106

90

115

101

77

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
85

112

138

144

126

123

105

72

58

48

25

13

11

8

2

7

32

69

88

111

106

132

108

80

95

110

129

145

157

134

99

75

65

44

20

12

7

7

3

3

31

59

79

95

118

108

125

92

101

120

135

125

138

137

120

66

75

45

35

17

9

5

8

14

33

66

80

91

91

111

110

102

104

108

113

143

157

121

100

97

54

53

24

8

17

10

8

8

28

60

70

103

113

112

99

103

97

137

146

161

159

123

137

102

90

67

54

12

23

14

17

16

25

37

42

72

77

97

92

105

96

123

109

118

115

118

117

108

70

75

50

33

32

27

18

23

14

24

30

47

98

102

89

106

79

61

84

96

114

97

90

91

69

64

46

31

As a percentage of total road traffic deaths
Mon 3%
Tue 2%
Wed 1%
Thu 1%Fri 2%
Sat 2%Sun 2%
1

1%

2%

1%

5%

7%

7%

9%

8%

10%

9%

6%

7%

8%

9%

9%

7%

7%

6%

6%

5%

5%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10% 11%

10%

7%

8%

8%

9%

9%

8%

8%

7%

6%

6%

5%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

5%

7%

7%

8%

11%

9%

11%

8%

8%

9%

10%

8%

8%

8%

7%

5%

7%

5%

3%

3%

1%

2%

3%

6%

7%

7%

8%

9%

10% 10%

9%

8%

8%

8%

9%

8%

7%

6%

7%

4%

5%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

4%

6%

6%

8%

9%

9%

8%

7%

9%

9%

8%

7%

6%

7%

6%

6%

4%

2%

2%

8%

1%

2%

1%

2%

3%

4%

7%

7%

8%

7%

8%

7%

8%

7%

6%

5%

6%

6%

6%

4%

5%

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

5%

10% 10%

8%

8%

6%

4%

5%

6%

6%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

3%

3%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 1113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Source: available reports in EU CARE database for EU27 countries, Norway and Switzerland

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013126 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.2 Cyclist traffic fatalities by month or day of week and by time of day, USA, 2005-2011
USA Cyclist Deaths by Month/Day of Week and Hour 2005-2011 (n=4891)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

Jan 6
Feb 7
Mar 3
Apr 12
May 11
Jun 13
Jul 17
Aug 17
Sep 12
Oct 10
Nov 9
Dec 5

3

2

3

6

7

16

0

9

8

8

10

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
10

11

11

15

18

26

36

20

14

7

9

9

6

4

3

2

4

11

6

7

6

13

6

11

9

11

12

15

21

37

24

20

11

13

13

4

4

1

4

3

17

10

7

9

12

15

13

21

15

23

24

17

23

24

15

20

11

10

15

11

4

4

13

8

11

8

13

9

11

14

16

19

26

21

23

17

25

33

26

23

14

12

7

6

7

9

14

17

10

15

17

18

22

14

18

29

20

26

41

25

42

37

23

16

9

7

5

11

11

16

13

14

36

17

18

22

22

27

22

26

31

29

28

29

42

41

22

11

10

10

4

15

14

27

24

17

22

22

20

22

32

25

20

30

34

24

32

43

27

21

13

6

5

7

11

19

20

21

21

18

19

26

15

26

20

29

35

35

34

48

37

33

20

14

18

11

9

10

26

28

17

22

19

19

13

13

24

30

25

30

39

30

44

30

24

20

14

6

9

9

14

24

27

19

15

16

7

18

18

17

17

23

31

30

41

36

23

19

19

5

6

2

5

12

19

8

10

14

6

8

15

16

15

25

18

43

49

20

19

20

11

11

4

6

3

3

6

13

3

4

10

11

14

10

10

8

16

22

32

27

26

23

17

12

9

As a percentage of total road traffic deaths
Jan 1%
Feb 1%
Mar 0%
Apr 1%
May 1%
Jun 1%
Jul 2%
Aug 2%
Sep 1%
Oct 1%
Nov 1%
Dec 1%

Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

2%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

5%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

4%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

1%

2%

3%

2%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

4%

3%

2%

2%

3%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

4%

3%

3%

2%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

4%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0%

1%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0%

1%

0%

1%

1%

2%

0%

1%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 1113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

12

9

5

5

10

15

28

28

24

28

24

31

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
24

27

31

47

40

71

68

34

50

27

30

10

8

6

5

6

22

34

21

23

21

22

24

28

30

31

38

47

53

64

50

40

42

29

13

18

8

7

4

6

25

23

32

23

28

20

19

29

26

30

47

39

47

58

54

56

48

32

22
28

21

11

12

11

5

14

18

38

27

21

35

21

26

32

23

40

28

34

45

73

55

44

47

33

20

17

13

7

12

14

33

26

16

27

28

22

21

29

27

47

36

58

53

43

62

53

61

42

23

22

32

16

13

14

26

24

26

23

31

28

37

33

37

25

25

36

46

48

63

52

32

35

28

34

13

20

10

7

15

12

17

24

22

17

23

19

27

28

40

35

35

37

40

44

29

24

2%

As a percentage of total road traffic deaths
Mon 1%
Tue 1%
Wed 2%
Thu 1%
Fri 1%
Sat 1%Sun 1%
1

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

4%

4%

2%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

4%

3%

2%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

2%

2%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

4%

3%

2%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

2%

2%

1%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 1113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Source: FARS database

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 127

The first is that fatal bicycle crashes occur more frequently outside of wintertime in both Europe andthe USA. The six months from May to October account for 62% of all bicycle crash fatalities in Europe(2005-2010, CARE) as well as in the USA (2005-2011, FARS). In the latter case, the seasonal
demarcation seems less strong but this may also be due to the smaller sample size. Looking only at the
distribution of fatal crashes per month by country (Figure 4.3), we see that the pattern is quite similar for
the USA and Europe though individual countries (represented by grey bars) display great variations.
Because Figure 4.3 reports percentages and not absolute numbers, some of the variations may be due tosmall sample size in a few countries. However, some countries, especially those with relatively highlevels of utilitarian cycling, show a drop-off in fatalities during the summer months which is contrary to
the pattern found in aggregate European fatal bicycle crash data (e.g. the case of Belgium in Figure 4.3).
This may be due to a drop in overall levels of cycling during the summer holidays in those countries.
Questionnaire responses confirmed that the lowest percentage of fatal crashes occurs during winter inevery respondent country and, conversely, the greatest percentage of fatal crashes occurs during summer
in every respondent country, with the exception of Australia, where it is in autumn, and Belgium, where
it is in spring (seen in Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3 Percentage of all reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring by month, selected European countries.
All European countries below

USA 1

Belgium

Austria, Belgium, Croatia2, Czech Republic, Denmark,Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands 3, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden 4,
Switzerland 5 , United Kingdom
20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

1 2005-2011, 22007-2010, 2 2005-2009, 3 2005-2009, 42008-2010

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010 and USA FARS database 2005-2011

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 reveal an especially prominent pattern of fatal crashes that seem related to dusk
and early nightfall for both Europe and the USA. This pattern is visible as a right-facing arrow composedof local maxima in the early evening that evolves over the year according to the length of the day. A
reasonable assumption may be that these crashes are at least partially linked to the lack of visibility ofcyclists, especially in the early evening hours. Looking at light conditions at the time of fatal crashes(Figure 4.4) we see that while most crashes occur in daylight (when there is likely to be more cycling) a
significant share occur in unlit or low light conditions – especially in the USA where these crashes
account for nearly half of all fatal crashes. The corresponding share for European countries may beunderstated as there are a number of fatal crashes for which lighting conditions were not recorded.
Certain European countries report a greater share of fatal crashes in darkness and twilight than duringCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

128 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

daylight (for crashes where this variable was recorded) – e.g. Croatia (52%), the Czech Republic (66%),
Ireland (81%) and the United Kingdom (62%).
Figure 4.4 Cyclist traffic fatalities by light conditions in Europe and the USA
US FARS data (2005-2011)
Daylight

Dark - Not Lighted
1%

Dark - Lighted

EU CARE data (2005-2010)
Dawn

Dusk

Unknown

Daylight

Darkness

4% 1%

Twilight

Unknown

15%

5%

21%

53%

22%

58%

20%

Source: EU CARE database and USA FARS database

A third pattern emerging in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 concerns a clustering of fatal bicycle crashes in themorning and evening. The four hours from 16:00 to 20:00 account for 25% of all fatal bicycle crashes in
Europe (2005-2010 CARE) and 27% of all fatal bicycle crashes in the USA (2005-2011 FARS). Thispattern seems to be less impacted by season and month of year (and therefore lighting conditions likely
play less of a role for these) and seems to occur slightly later in the USA. The distribution of fatal crashes
by hour of the day (Figure 4.5) confirms this pattern and the later peak in fatal crashes that occurs in theUSA.
A smaller cluster of fatal crashes occurs in the morning. This pattern is more muted in the USA thanin Europe where a visible cluster of crashes can be discerned from approximately 08:00-11:00, JuneAugust and Monday-Thursday in Figure 4.2. The period from 06:00 to 11:00 accounts for 26% of all
fatal bicycle crashes in Europe (2005-2010 CARE) and 18% of all fatal bicycle crashes in the USA(2005-2011 FARS). Looking at specific European countries reveals a range of patterns that gravitate
around the average pattern seen in Figure 4.5.
In the Czech Republic (and the UK, not shown) there is a local peak in the overall percentage offatalities around 22:00 (Figure 4.5). Spain and Denmark each register a slightly later and higher morning
peak (around 11:00) and Spain’s (and Romania’s, not shown) evening peak is later than average ataround 19:00. In some countries, such as Denmark and Australia (as reported in Australia’s questionnaire
response), the morning peak in fatalities is larger than the afternoon/evening peak. Divergences from thegeneral pattern described above may reflect different work and leisure patterns. Considering that a
relatively low proportion of cycling is likely to occur at night, the percentage of fatal crashes that occur
at night is fairly high in several countries.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 129

Figure 4.5 Percentage of all reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring by time of day, 2005-2010
USA1

All European Countries below

Czech Republic

Denmark

Spain

Austria, Belgium, Croatia2, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia,
Netherlands3, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden4, Switzerland 5 , United Kingdom
15%

10%

5%

0%
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Time of day (hour)
1 2005-2011, 22007-2010, 3 2005-2009, 4 2005-2009, 52008-2010

Source: EU CARE database

The fourth pattern emerging from figures 4.1 and 4.2 concerns the distribution of crashes according
to the day of the week. Fatal bicycle crashes in Europe and the USA are more frequent during weekdays(evenings in particular) and seem to drop off slightly on Saturday and even more so on Sunday. Friday
accounts for the highest percentage of bicycle fatalities by day of week in both Europe (2005-2010
CARE) and the USA (2005-2011 FARS) – 16% in both instances. The drop-off on Saturday seems more
muted in the USA (as confirmed when looking at the distribution of crashes by day of week in Figure4.6). Australia’s questionnaire response, however, reveals a different pattern with fatal crashes appearing
most likely on the weekend, with Saturday and Sunday showing an elevated percentage of fatal crashes
compared to the weekdays. Both the USA and Europe register a mid-week lull in fatal crashes, thoughearlier for the former (Tuesday) and later for the latter (Thursday -- Figure 4.6). Denmark’s distributionof fatal crashes is loosely representative of the patterns found in many of the countries studied. In
Europe, a local maxima can be seen around 08:00 to 11:00 on Sunday mornings in Figure 4.1 – a pattern
likely linked to recreational cycling as Sunday mornings is a traditional recreational cycling day in many
European countries. Spain’s distribution of fatal bicycle crashes illustrated in Figure 4.6 reflects thisphenomenon.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013130 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.6 Percentage of all reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring by day of week, 2005-2010
All European countries below

USA1

Denmark

Spain

Austria, Belgium, Croatia2, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands 3, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden 4,
Switzerland 5 , United Kingdom
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

1 2005-2011, 22007-2010, 3 2005-2009, 4 2005-2009, 52008-2010

Source: EU CARE database

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 also display bicycle crash fatalities as a percentage of total traffic crash fatalities
according to month/day of week and hour. While these figures generally reflect the patterns describedabove they also display some notable differences. The first is that the share of bicycle fatalities to overall
traffic fatalities is highest in the morning in the late spring and summer (extending to the early fall in theUSA). Year-round, the highest share of bicycle to all traffic fatalities occurs in the weekday morning
peak in Europe whereas in the USA it is in the weekday afternoon/evening peak. The impact of dusk isdistinctly visible in Europe as this period consistently accounts for a high share of bicycle-to-overall
fatalities throughout the year. The recreational cycling effect described previously is also visible inEurope on Sunday mornings. In the USA, it also becomes visible on both Saturday (a traditional
recreational riding day in North America) as well as on Sunday morning.
What role do surface and atmospheric conditions play in fatal crashes?
Although wet or icy surface conditions may present a crash risk due to a loss of traction, most fatal
crashes occur in dry surface conditions -- most likely because this is when most cycling occurs. CARE
data for all reporting EU countries indicates that 82% of fatal bicycle crashes occurred on dry surfaces,
15% on wet or damp surfaces and 1% respectively on slippery and frozen surfaces. Similarly, an
overwhelming majority of fatal bicycle crashes occur in dry or clear atmospheric conditions – 94% in the
USA and 87% in Europe. Rain is the next most frequent atmospheric condition at the time of a fatal
bicycle crash occurring in the case of 5% of all fatal bicycle crashes in the USA and in Europe. Other
atmospheric conditions including high wind, fog and snow and sleet occur in 1% or less each of total
fatal bicycle crashes although in some countries, this percentage may be higher reflecting local climate
patterns. For example, snow, sleet and/or hail account for 4% and 2% of fatal bicycle crashes in Finlandand Latvia, respectively.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 131

Where do fatal crashes occur?
Crash location
Figure 4.7 shows the percentage of fatal bicycle crashes occurring in metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan in European countries according to CARE data. In addition, Australia and the USA reportin their questionnaire responses that 50% and 69%, respectively, of all police-reported fatal crashes
occurred in metropolitan areas. In most European countries (21 out of 27), fatal bicycle crashes were as,or more, common in metropolitan areas than in other locations. In 6 countries, fatal crashes were morecommon in rural areas or on non-metropolitan motorways. One possible reason for this is a high rate ofleisure/sport cycling in some of these countries (Spain, France) or because of inter-urban cycling in a
relatively dense urban-rural landscape (Belgium).
Figure 4.7 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring inurban vs. rural areas and motorways, EU

24%

38%

32%

41%

38%

50%

43%

53%

Unknown

53%

56%

54%

57%

56%

59%

Motorway

59%

61%

60%

62%

61%

62%

Rural

62%

64%

63%

83%

74%

Urban

*Croatia(2007-2010), Netherlands (2005-2009), Sweden (2005-2009), Switzerland (2008-2010)

Source: EU CARE database (selected EU countries), 2005-2010*

The CARE database does not specifically account for cycling infrastructure but the working group
questionnaire elicited several responses on this topic. In countries that returned questionnaire data on thetype of infrastructure where fatal crashes occur (Belgium, Denmark, and France), such crashes were lesscommon on infrastructure specifically designed for bicycles than on roads not marked with bicycle lanes.
Arguably, more cycling occurs on cycling-specific infrastructure than on roads in Belgium and Denmark,though perhaps not in France (Figure 4.8). The US FARS database does account for cycling
infrastructure for the years 2010 and 2011 (bicycle lanes and greenways) and reports that 2% of all fatal
crashes occurred on these infrastructures. This relatively low share in the USA is likely more a testament
to the relatively low prevalence of this type of infrastructure than to its safety per se.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

132 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.8 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring on
different types of infrastructure in Belgium and Denmark
Belgium

Denmark

France
93%

63%

59%

28%
22%
15%

11%

4%
Cycle path3%
Cycle lane

On-roadSource: Questionnaire responses

Configuration of infrastructure
For European countries reporting location data to the CARE database, 29% of all fatal bicycle
crashes occurred at junctions for the period 2005-2010 though some countries report much lower shares(Figure 4.9). It is difficult to say without further investigation whether extremely low shares of fatal
crashes occurring at junctions in some countries (e.g. Greece, Romania, Latvia) reflect reality or are due
to mis-reporting or mis-characterisation of crash locations2. In Korea, 35% of fatal bicycle crashes
occurred in or near a junction and a further 8% occurred in crosswalks (and a further 50% of fatal crashes
occurred on the road outside of junctions/crosswalks). In the United States, 36% of all fatal bicycle
crashes for the period 2005-2011 occurred in junctions with another 4% in driveways (commercial andprivate) most likely caused by entering or exiting motor vehicles. Australia reported that only 20% of
fatal crashes occurred at junctions which is a relatively low share.
Of fatal bicycle crashes occurring in junctions, most concerned 4-way crossroads in the USA (64%of all junction-related fatal crashes in 2010-2011) and crossroads in Europe (83% of all junction-related
fatal crashes, 2005-2010). Roundabouts and traffic circles represented a fairly low share of overall
junction-related bicycle crash fatalities (5% in European countries reporting this data and less than 1% in
the USA, 2010-2011). Nonetheless, in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Italy and France roundabouts
account for a considerably higher share of fatal junction-related bicycle crashes – 10%, 14%, 17% and18%, respectively for the period 2005-2010. It is not clear whether these elevated percentages reflectincreased crash risk in such junctions, or simply the greater number of such junctions, in the countries
concerned … or both. Belgium reports an unusually high share of “other” crash locations and an
unusually low share of junction-related serious injury crashes – it seems likely that many of the latter arerecorded in the former.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 133

Figure 4.9 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring atdifferent junction locations, EU
Denmark

Total
7%

Crossroad

8%

Germany

26%

27%

24%

Latvia7%

Romania

6%

13%

31%
45%

Roundabout
2%

T/staggered
junction
Not at junction Estonia

1%
4%

44%

5% 2%

16%

Netherlands 3%

2%

Slovakia

4%

7%

Other

56%

Greece

7%

87%

88%

8%

11%
11%

35%

Unknown

58%

74%

98%

79%

3%

Austria

Croatia12%2%Finland2% 1% 8%Hungary3%

Belgium

7%

3%France

14%
2%
13%

53%
63%

8%

3%

33%

77%

Czech Republic

1%

Spain
23%

44%
50%

Poland

5%

12%

29%

4%

Italy

9%
3%

Portugal

8%

11%
1%

19%

23%

Sweden
2%

28%

7%

16%

68%

77%

0%

13%

42%

34%

4%
56%

73%

77%

54%

1%

64%
11%

United Kingdom
9%

26%

9%
6%
*Croatia(2007-2010), Netherlands (2005-2009), Sweden(2005-2009), Switzerland (2008-2010)
28%

48%

Source: EU Care database, 2005-2010*

Speed limit
Both CARE and FARS databases include data on legal speed limits for the roads on which fatal
bicycle crashes occur (Figure 4.10). Approximately half of all fatal police-reported crashes in European
countries reporting speed limit data occurred on roads with legal speed limits between 30 to 50 km/hr
and about one quarter of all reported fatal crashes occur on roads whose legal speed limit is between 80
and 100 km/hr. The former may account for a large volume of cycling (and thus crashes) while the latter
represents roads whose legal speeds greatly increase the probability of fatal outcomes for bicycle-motor
vehicle crashes. There is some variability amongst countries with Estonia reporting a disproportionate
share of fatal crashes occurring on roads whose legal speed limits are between 80 and 100 km/hr andGermany reporting a disproportionate share of fatal crashes occurring on roads whose legal speed is
30km/hr or less.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013134 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIESUS FARS data on legal speed limits for roads where fatal bicycle crashes have occurred is also
shown in Figure 4.9. FARS data are reported in miles per hour and are displayed in the figure below inspeed bands that are roughly analogous to those used to display CARE data. The USA shows a different
pattern than Europe with more than 50% of all fatal bicycle crashes occurring on roads whose speed limit
is above 50 miles per hour (80 km/hr) and an additional 23% on roads whose posted speed limit isbetween 35 and 60 miles per hour (56 and 80 km/hr). Australia reported a relatively even distribution of
fatal bicycle crashes in the 40-50 km/hr (25%), 60 km/hr (26%), 70-80 km/hr (23%) and the 100+ km/hr(24%) – the 90 km/hr speed zone only accounted for 2% of fatal crashes.
Figure 4.10 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes according to
the legal speed limit of the main road involved in EU and USA
Belgium

Estonia
38%

31%

0%

0%

Finland

65%

0%

54%

6%

1%

Denmark
48%

54%

41%

10%
0%

0%

76% Germany0%Portugal

5%

0%

0%

United Kingdom
56%

50%

USA

50%

35%
26%
9%

1%

0%

1%

0-30 31-50 51-80 81-100 overkm/hr km/h km/h km/h 100
km/hr

12%
3%

0%

0-30 31-50 51-80 81-100 overkm/hr km/h km/h km/h 100
km/hr

2%

11%

1%
0-30 31-50 51-80 81-100 overkm/hr km/h km/h km/h 100
km/hr

35%

16%
0%

0%

Switzerland

31%

1%

14%

11%

0%

Netherlands
62%

18%

26%

13%

11%

9%
1%

48%

45%

44%

27%

26%

Total European countries

Sweden
44%

32%

4%

Croatia

Ireland

64%

8%

14%

0%

0-30 31-50 51-80 81-100 overkm/hr km/h km/h km/h 100
km/hr

9%

16%

1%

4%

0-30 31-50 51-80 81-100 overkm/hr km/h km/h km/h 100
km/hr

0-20
mph

23%

31%

25%

21-35 36-50 51-65 65+
mph mph mph mph

Source: EU CARE database 2005-2010*(Selected countries) and USA FARS database 2005-2009

Use of bicycle helmets
Few countries report the use of bicycle helmets in fatal bicycle crashes. According to the CARE
database (for countries reporting this data), only 17% of fatal crashes involved a cyclist wearing a helmet(Figure 4.11). Spain and Switzerland report the highest rate of helmet use for deceased cyclists (39% and31%, respectively) whereas several other countries report quite low helmet use probably reflecting lower
helmet-wearing rates in these countries. Even for those countries reporting on helmet use in the CARE
database, helmet use was not recorded for a significant number of fatal crashes (e.g. Denmark, Estonia,
France Portugal and Slovenia).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 135

Figure 4.11 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring with or without helmets, EU
Denmark

Total (these countries)

With helmet

Portugal

12%

Spain

2%

9%

33%

33%

17%

39%

Without helmet

26%

52%

Not applicable

0%

52%
13%

55%

Not recorded

Estonia

Slovakia

8%

2%

Switzerland

5%

31%
38%
36%

55%

69%
18%

Croatia

6%

Czech Republic

10%

94%

FranceSlovenia
19%

14%

33%

17%

59%

0%
4%

94%

90%

53%

*Croatia(2007-2010), Switzerland (2008-2010)

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010*

In the United States, 27% of deceased cyclists for which helmet use was recorded wore helmets in2010 and 2011 (helmet use was not recorded for 14% of all fatal bicycle crashes over the same period).
In Australia where helmet use is compulsory, amongst fatal bicycle crash victims for whom helmet use
was recording, 63% were wearing helmets.
Crash type
According to questionnaire responses, over 80% of fatal crashes in each country for which data wasreported were collisions rather than non-collisions. CARE data on fatal single vehicle collision crashes(e.g. falls or collisions with non-vehicle objects) in Europe confirms questionnaire responses indicating
relatively low shares of such crashes with some countries even reporting no such fatal crashes between
2005 and 2009. Figure 4.12 shows the share of single vehicle to non-single vehicle fatal bicycle crashes
for a selection of countries. In these countries, most fatal bicycle crashes are not single vehicle crashes.
For the remainder, most crashes involving no other vehicle also involved no direct collision with an
obstacle and therefore presumably resulted from a fall. In some countries, the proportion of fatal single
vehicle crashes is relatively elevated as is the case in Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland and Germany.
In Australia, single vehicle bicycle crashes accounted for 19% of all bicycle crash fatalities for the years
2005-2012. US FARS data only reports fatal bicycle crashes that result from a motor vehicle collisionand thus do not include single vehicle bicycle crashes.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

136 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.12 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes occurring withor without a crash opponent, EU
Single vehicle crash without obstacles

7%

Single vehicle crash with obstacle

4%

9%

1%

20%

25%

9%
5%

20%

37%

2%

Not a single vehicle crash

9%
5%

6%
4%

7%

86%

89%

92%

2%

0.4%
6%

92%

96%

98%

91%

80%

86%

79%

69%

63%

Source: EU CARE database, various year ranges

Collision opponent
Questionnaire responses showed that the vast majority of police-reported fatal collisions are withmotor vehicles (e.g. 80-99% of all collision crashes) though in Spain this figure was lower (70%), due inpart to a high number of fatal bicycle-train crashes.
In the United States, most fatal bicycle-vehicle collisions involved a passenger car or light truck(Sports Utility Vehicle) though 10% of fatal bicycle collisions involved a large truck (Figure 4.13). In
Australia rigid or articulated trucks were involved in 20% of all bicycle crash fatalities for the years
2005-2012.
Figure 4.13 Fatal bicycle crash victims by crash opponent, USA

Passenger Car

Light Truck2%

Large TruckBus

Other/Unknown Vehicle

7%

10%
38%

43%

Source: USA FARS database, 2005-2011

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 137

Box 4.1 Evidence and lessons from London on HGV and construction vehicle-related fatal bicycle crashes
Cycle safety research has highlighted the over-proportional representation of Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) (including
construction-related vehicles) in fatal bicycle crashes in the greater London area. 38% of the 92 police-registered cyclist fatalities
in London from 2000 to 2006 were struck by a HGV of over 7 tonnes and a quarter of these crashes involved nearside turns orlane-changing by the HGV. Concerned by this trend, Transport for London (TFL) commissioned a report (Delmonte, et al. 2013)
to understand what factors were at play in HGV-cyclist crashes and to identify possible counter-measures.
That report found that rigid HGVs were disproportionately involved in fatal bicycle crashes. Rigid HGVs represent 75% of
the HGV distance travelled in London and 27% of the tonne kilometers moved by road but account for 89% of fatal HGV-bicycle
crashes. The differences between rigid and articulated HGVs are at least partially linked to their respective freight tasks, typicalroutes and types of journeys as well as to differences amongst the vehicles themselves. One of the key differences between
articulated and rigid vehicles in London is that the latter are likely to be involved in servicing construction projects in the city andoperate according to different patterns and constraints than typical goods delivery vehicles. Whereas the latter tend to operate
habitual services in urban areas or involve drivers that operate exclusively in urban areas, construction-related HGVs serve
multiple, constantly changing construction sites and involve drivers who are likely to do most of their driving outside of urban
areas. Further, contractors and sub-contractors typically do not extend workplace safety processes to the transport task. These
factors, combined with blindspot visibility constraints inherent in HGVs (especially to the front and nearside) that remain evenafter the installation of extended view mirrors, give rise to an inherently dangerous situation for cyclists (and pedestrians).
Recommended responses include efforts to promote road safety as an integral part of construction industry work safety
initiatives and rules, raise awareness of HGV drivers as to the crash risk posed by near-side turning, investigating ways of further
reducing HGV blindspots without increasing task complexity, easing time slot constraints for construction site delivery andestablish safer construction site access routes that minimise conflicts with cyclists. This initiative is part of a broader effort by
TFL to reduce the incidence of HGV-cyclist crashes and builds on other efforts of TFL which include a requirement that allcontractors and sub-contractors carrying out TFL business meet TFL’s cycle safety requirements as of December 2012. These
include an urban driving safety course for HGV drivers and the installation of side guards, fresnel lenses (or an equivalentside/front view system), class VI mirrors and close proximity warning sensors.
Sources: (Delmonte, et al. 2013), TFL

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

138 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.14 Fatal bicycle crash victims by crash opponent (excluding passenger cars), EU% involvement in fatal bicycle crashes
Heavy Goods
VehiclesAustria
Belgium
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
FinlandFranceGermany
GreeceHungary
Iceland
IrelandItaly
LatviaNetherlands
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom (GB)All European countries above% involvement in serious injury bicycle crashes
Light Goods
VehiclesMotorised 2wheelers

17%

2%

3%

2%

3%

2%

22%

5%

11%

6%

3%

4%

1%

0%

1%

0%

6%

3%

12%

5%

4%

4%

3%

2%

23%

5%

8%

7%

3%

6%

31%

0%

10%

2%

6%

4%

17%

4%

7%

6%

3%

6%

10%

2%

10%

4%

3%

2%

12%

4%

13%

10%

5%

8%

12%

4%

11%

6%

3%

4%

0%

5%

0%

9%

0%

0%

25%

13%

8%

8%

2%

2%

3%

7%

19%

11%

1%

2%

1%

2%

20%

4%

16%

11%

4%

11%

10%

5%

19%

19%

3%

2%

5%

2%

17%

10%

2%

3%

23%

8%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

12%

6%

2%

2%

10%

3%

21%

10%

3%

5%

15%

2%

3%

4%

3%

6%

13%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

20%

4%

8%

6%

1%

2%

12%

3%

10%

5%

3%

3%

Source: EU CARE database, selected European countries, 2005-2010

Data from the CARE database confirms the significance of heavy goods vehicles (HGV)
involvement in fatal bicycle crashes. HGVs were involved in 12% of all fatal bicycle crashes for
European countries reporting this data3 from 2005-2010 (Figure 4.14). For some countries, HGV
involvement in fatal bicycle crashes was significantly higher, representing a quarter or more of all fatal
bicycle crashes. In almost all countries, HGVs were over-represented in fatal versus serious injury
crashes (HGVs were involved in 3% of all serious injury bicycle crashes compared to 12% for fatal
injury crashes for European countries reporting this data) highlighting the disproportionate risk of deathfor cyclists involved in HGV collisions. Light goods vehicles (vans, delivery vehicles, etc.) wereinvolved in a further 10% of all fatal bicycle crashes for countries reporting this data4 and 5% of serious
injury bicycle crashes. Motorised two-wheelers were the third most represented crash opponent involvedin fatal bicycle crashes – though in some countries, their crash involvement was higher than that of
HGVs (e.g. Italy).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 139

Manoeuvre
The CARE database provides some data on cyclist manoeuvre at the time of a fatal bicycle crash forselected countries (Figure 4.15). This data should be treated with caution and cannot be said to be fully
representative for the simple reason that for 55% of fatal crashes, the cyclist’s manoeuvre was unknown(or not recorded) and for another 37% of all fatal crashes, the manoeuvre was categorised as “other”.
Figure 4.15 Manoeuvre by cyclist for fatal bicycle crashes where pre-crash manoeuvre was identified
and recorded, EU
Austria

France

Italy

75%

Spain
72%

51%

63%

36%
17%

16%
6%

1

6% 6%

2

3

0% 3% 0% 0%

4 5 6
Belgium

7

8

9

71%

6%

3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0%

1

2

3

4

5 6
Greece

7

8

9

1

2

3

0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

4 5 6 7
Netherlands

8

6%

9

1

2

14%
1% 2% 0% 0%

2% 0%

3 4 5 6 7
United Kingdom

8

9

82%

78%

47%

8%

33%
13%

18%

1

2

3

4 5 6
Denmark

7

8

9

16%

7%

4% 0% 0% 5% 1% 1% 0%

0%

1

2

3

4 5 6
Hungary

7

8

9

4%

3% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

1

2

3

4 5 6
Portugal

7

8

9

1

2

10%

3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 4 5 6 7 8
Total (these countries)

9

74%

83%

77%
96%

4% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0%

7

8

9

Reversing6

U turn5Overtaking vehicle on its right4

Overtaking vehicle on its left

3

Changing lane

2

Slowing or stopping

1

Turning left

9Turning right

8

Straight forward/normal driving

7

Reversing6

U turn5Overtaking vehicle on its right4

Overtaking vehicle on its left

3

Changing lane2

16%
0% 5% 2% 2% 1% 0% 2%

Slowing or stopping

1

Turning left

9Straight forward/normal driving

8

Reversing7

U turn6Overtaking vehicle on its right5

Overtaking vehicle on its left

4

Changing lane3

Slowing or stopping

2

Turning left

1

Turning right9

Straight forward/normal driving

8

Reversing7

U turn6Overtaking vehicle on its right5

Overtaking vehicle on its left

4

Changing lane3

Slowing or stopping

Turning left

2

Turning right

Straight forward/normal driving

1

11%0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%Turning right15%

Source: EU CARE database, selected countries, 2005-2010

Figure 4.15 shows the distribution of cyclist manoeuvres for those crashes where this data wasrecorded for countries that consistently have reported this data to the CARE database. In most countries,
the deceased cyclist was engaged in straightforward or normal riding (74% of all identified cases on
average for these countries). CARE data does not report whether fatal crashes that occurred when thecyclist was underway in a normal or straight manner were caused by a vehicle overtaking from behind.
Notable exceptions to the straight-ahead riding majority include Austria where the most common precrash manoeuvre by the deceased cyclist was a nearside turn and Italy where, conversely, it was an
offside turn. Greece reports a high share of cyclists was changing lanes when fatal crashes occurred.
US FARS data reports pre-crash manoeuvres by cyclists in fatal bicycle crashes for the years 2010
and 2011. According to this data, the two most common cyclist pre-fatal crash manoeuvres were moving
along with traffic (38%) or crossing the roadway (34%) – the former includes nearside turns (with traffic)
and the latter include offside turns across traffic. 8% of all fatal bicycle crashes involved a cyclist
travelling against traffic, another 4% concerned cyclists travelling adjacent to the roadway or in a medianarea and 2% concerned cyclists travelling on a sidewalk. Unknown or unclassified manoeuvres only
account for 6% of all fatal bicycle crashes for these two years in the FARS database.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

140 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Incident-level analysis of the United Kingdom’s Road Accident and Safety database gives someinsight into the combined manoeuvres of both bicycle and the collision opponent in fatal bicycle crashes.
For crashes resulting in the death of a cyclist and in which only 2 vehicles were involved (the bicycle andone collision opponent -- 74% of all fatal bicycle crashes in the UK from 2005-2011) either the bicycle(69%) or the crash opponent (59%) was recorded as going ahead in neither an offside or nearside turn.
However, in only 44% of all fatal bicycle crashes were both doing the same even though this crash
configuration is by far the most common one recorded in the UK data. Approximately half of all fatal 2vehicle bicycle collisions from 2005-2011 involved a bicycle being hit from behind or by a vehicle
attempting to overtake the bicycle on either the street centre side or on the kerbside. A further 16% of all
fatal bicycle crashes involved one of the two vehicles turning across the path of its straight-travellingcrash opponent.
The above findings generally hold when looking at different types of bicycle crash opponents with
the notable exception of very large trucks (over 7.5 tonnes) where only 33% of fatal crashes involved atruck travelling straight ahead and 39% of fatal crashes involved the truck turning into or across the pathof a bicycle.
Questionnaire responses provided more detail as to cyclist manoeuvres in fatal bicycle crashes for a
few countries. In Australia the most common type of crash in which cyclists were fatally injured was thecyclist being hit from behind by a motor vehicle travelling in the same lane in the same direction. The
next most common crash type was the cyclist riding from the footway into a junction or onto a road andbeing hit by an oncoming motor vehicle (Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2006).
In Belgium fatal collisions with motor vehicles most often occurred at a junction when the cycle andthe motor vehicle were approaching from different streets (13%). The next most frequent manoeuvres
were the cycle being hit by the motor vehicle from behind (11%), or being sideswiped during a turn(10%).
In Denmark, fatal collisions with motor vehicles most often occurred when the motor vehicle wasturning nearside and sideswiped the cyclist who may also have been turning nearside or (in most cases)
going straight ahead (19%), and at a junction when the cycle and the motor vehicle were approaching thesame junction from different streets (19%). The next most frequent manoeuvre was where the cycle washit by the motor vehicle from behind (13%).
In Korea 52% of fatal bicycle crashes were motor vehicle nearside angle collisions where a motor
vehicle sideswiped a bicycle while turning to the nearside.
Contributing actions by cyclists or motorists
The working group questionnaire sought data on which traffic participant (cyclist or other) was
deemed to be principally at fault in the crash-related police reports. According to questionnaire
responses, cyclists were reported at fault in 60% of fatal crashes in Australia and 40% in Spain (seeFigure 4.16). For this variable only, Spanish data were drawn from two provinces. In Denmark, cyclists
did not have right of way in 24% of fatal crashes. These findings may reflect different right-of-way rules
or practices in effect in different countries with Denmark having relatively more favourable right-of-way
rules than either Australia or Spain.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 141

Figure 4.16 Percentage of all police-reported fatal bicycle crashes classified as cyclist at fault in Australia,
Denmark, and Spain

60%

40%

24%

Australia

Denmark

Spain

Source: Questionnaire responses

The US FARS database tracks cyclists’ action circumstances at the time of a fatal crash involving a
motor vehicle (Figure 4.17). For the years 2005-2011, 68% of fatal bicycle crashes involved no improper
action on the part of the cyclist or had no record of an improper action (data from 2010 and 2011 indicatethat 76% of those crashes recorded as “no improper action/none reported” specifically noted “noimproper action”). Of the remaining 32%, failure to follow traffic rules – e.g. failure to yield right-ofway and failure to obey (traffic signs, control devices, etc.) – was the most significant category of cyclist
fault in fatal bicycle crashes accounting for one third of all recorded improper actions undertaken bycyclists in fatal bicycle crashes.
Figure 4.17 Bicyclist action circumstance at time of crash for fatal bicycle crashes in the USA% of improper actions recorded
Failure to yield right of way
Other f actors
Failure to obey (e.g. signs, control devices, of f icers)
Riding, playing, working, etc. in roadway
Not Visible
Improper crossing of roadway or intersection
Operating without required equipment
Driving on wrong side of road3%
Unknown
3%
Making improper turn3%
Failure to keep in proper lane or running of f road3%
Inattentive (Talking, Eating, etc.)2%
Improper lane changing
1%
Improper entry to or exit f rom traf f icway
Failing to have lights on when required 1%
0%Erratic, reckless, careless, or negligent operation

Source: EU CARE database, selected countries, 2005-2010

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

23%

15%
9%
8%
8%

8%

No improper action (or none recorded)
32%

5%
5%

Improper action(s) recorded
68%142 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIESThe FARS database allows a more detailed investigation of contributing actions by motorists infatal bicycle crashes. The first thing that stands out from this analysis is the relatively high incidence of
hit-and-run crashes – 17% of all deceased cyclists were involved in a hit-and-run crash in which one (orseveral) of their crash opponents fled the scene (2005-2011, FARS) – presumably the motorist(s). This isnearly four times the rate of hit-and-run involvement for all recorded traffic fatalities over the same
period in the United States (4%).
The FARS database also records the number and type of violations charged to drivers of motor
vehicles involved in fatal bicycle crashes as well as a series of (motor vehicle) driver-related factors that
played a role in fatal bicycle crashes as recorded by the investigative officer (Figure 4.18). Many
contributing factors may have been identified on the scene of the crash that do not necessarily lead toformal charges – the latter therefore provide broader insight into the types of motorist-related
contributing crash factors that did not necessarily result in legal charges.
Figure 4.18 Motorist violations and contributing factors for fatal bicycle crashes in the USA
Motor vehicle driver violation(s) charged (2005-2009)% of violations charged
18%

Traf f ic violation on the part of the motorist

17%

Vehicular manslaughter/homicide

16%

Alcohol, Drugs Or Medication-related violation

Traffic violation(s) charged
28%

13%

Hit and run
9%

Driver-related violations

Vehicle-related violations

6%

Operating the Vehicle in Careless or Inattentive Manner5%
No traffic violation charged
72%

17%

Unknown violation

Motor vehicle driver contributing factors identified by investigating officer (2005-2011)% of contributing factors identified
42%

Improper traf f ic action by driver13%

Hit and run

Under the Inf luence of Alcohol, Drugs Or Medication

9%

Operating the Vehicle in Careless or Inattentive Manner

8%
18%

Other
Unknown

Contributing factor identified
54%

9%

No contributing factor identified
46%

Source: USA FARS database

72% of motorists involved in fatal bicycle crashes in the USA (2005-2009) are not charged with aviolation. For the remaining 28%, traffic violations (failure to yield right-of-way, speeding, failure toheed signals, etc.), vehicular manslaughter, hit-and-run and alcohol/drug/medication-related violations
feature prominently.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 143

Investigating officers on the scene of fatal bicycle crashes in the United States found nocontributory factor on the part of the motorist in 46% of cases (2005-2011). For the remaining 54%, theleading contributory factor linked to the driver of the motor vehicle involved was “hit-and-run”, followedby “driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or medication” and “failure to yield right-of-way”.
In the USA, 27% of all deceased cyclists from 2005 to 2011 were not tested for alcohol and another
11% did not return useable results. Of the remaining 62%, one quarter (25%) returned blood alcohol
values above 0.08 mg/ltr which is the drink driving limit enforced by all 50 States. CARE data on alcoholor drug use by deceased cyclists is inconsistent largely due to significant lack of reporting by many
European countries.
4.3

Serious Injury crashes

As noted earlier, data on seriously injured cyclists is generally more scarce and more subject tounder-reporting than data on cyclist fatalities. Thus, as noted in section 4.1, inter-country comparison ofserious injury crash data must be approached with caution. Further, US FARS data is not used in thissection because the database is principally a fatality-reporting system.
When do serious injury bicycle crashes occur?
The heatmap in Figure 4.19 displays all serious injury bicycle victims by crash hour, month and dayof week for European countries reporting this data to the CARE database. Many of the same patterns
revealed in Figure 4.1 can also be seen here5. One notable exception is that the dusk-related rise infatalities seen in Figure 4.1 is not mirrored in Figure 4.19. Otherwise, the seasonal pattern (higher
numbers of serious injuries reported in late Spring and Summer months) and the diurnal pattern (morecrashes in the afternoon-evening with a second local maximum in the morning) are consistent with thepattern of fatal bicycle crashes shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.20, showing the range of serious injury
crashes by month and by country, confirm these patterns. As with fatal bicycle crashes, countries with ahigh level of daily utilitarian cycling (illustrated in Figure 4.20 by Belgium, Denmark and theNetherlands) display a more even distribution of serious injury crashes throughout the year and a relative
drop in serious injury crashes during the peak summer months – most likely linked to a lower number ofwork-cycling trips due to annual holidays.
There are also similarities with the diurnal distribution of fatal injury crashes (Figure 4.1) with adouble peak, once in the morning and again, but stronger, in the afternoon and early evening (Figure4.21). The four hours from 16:00 to 20:00 account for 26% of all serious injury bicycle crashes for which
the crash time was recorded with the morning period from 06:00 to 10:00 accounting for 22%. Again,
countries with high levels of utilitarian cycling (illustrated in Figure 4.21 by Denmark and theNetherlands) show a slightly different pattern in that both morning and evening peaks are more
accentuated. As with fatal bicycle crashes, Spain shows a lagged pattern for serious injury crashes inrelation to that displayed by most other countries.
75% of serious injury crashes for which light conditions were recorded in the CARE databaseoccurred in daylight and 23% in darkness or in twilight (Figure 4.22). As with fatal crashes, several
countries reported an atypical pattern of more numerous darkness/twilight crashes than daylight crashes –e.g. Ireland (77%) and the United Kingdom (62%).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

144 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.19 Seriously injured cyclists by month or day of week and by time of day, EU
European Cyclist Serious Injuries by Month/Day of Week and Hour 2005-2010 (n=84943)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

Jan 19Feb 13
Mar 25
Apr 24
May 54
Jun 46
Jul 56
Aug 52
Sep 23
Oct 36
Nov 21
Dec 14

18

12

21

53

126

349

323

211

249

220

231

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
240

275

284

339

359

279

166

117

77

48

26

15

16

5

21

50

127

232

290

220

178

173

194

229

253

275

292

317

294

186

97

72

57

23

21

14

13

23

64

112

280

335

264

272

315

265

326

341

383

455

436

325

271

152

119

66

50

29

31

15

32

57

123

311

438

370

387

474

459

476

536

634

679

726

544

424

234

178

116

88

42

38

20

27

46

132

362

527

439

490

518

489

558

641

748

776

842

701

519

320

232

175

112

53

42

36

29

56

164

432

586

522

565

584

576

568

644

762

867

954

783

667

423

268

185

124

86

51

30

25

80

198

328

478

556

658

640

560

565

662

697

828

837

785

661

494

333

223

129

91

44

26

43

75

151

323

418

488

564

620

571

621

649

704

759

864

778

587

400

261

163

107

85

28

14

32

115

226

473

587

449

472

539

541

559

701

777

879

846

675

530

339

168

131

99

59

26

21

25

88

267

457

477

455

420

420

462

487

581

663

761

651

562

378

205

150

89

51

42

18

17

20

82

208

355

407

288

305

364

298

325

402

429

507

604

404

239

159

85

69

55

41

16

8

8

50

158

284

277

223

242

231

232

251

291

278

367

391

271

173

131

76

52

36

30

As a percentage of total road traffic serious injuries
Jan 2%
Feb 1%
Mar 2%
Apr 2%
May 3%Jun 3%
Jul 3%
Aug 3%
Sep 2%
Oct 2%
Nov 2%
Dec 1%

2%

1%

2%

4%

6%

9%

8%

7%

8%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

6%

5%

4%

4%

3%

2%

2%

1%

2%

1%

2%

4%

7%

8%

9%

8%

7%

6%

6%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

6%

5%

3%

3%

3%

1%

2%

9%

9%

9%

7%

8%

2%

1%

1%

2%

5%

6%

9%

9%

8%

8%

9%

9%

7%

6%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

1%

3%

4%

7%

11%

13% 13% 12% 13% 11%

10% 11%

11%

11%

11%

10% 10%

7%

6%

4%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

3%

7%

11%

14% 13% 13% 12% 11%

12% 12% 13% 12% 12% 11%

8%

7%

6%

5%

3%

3%

3%

2%

4%

7%

13% 15% 15% 14% 13% 12% 11%

11%

3%

2%

2%

4%

8%

11%

13% 15% 15% 14% 12% 11%

12% 11%

11%

13% 14% 14% 14% 12% 13% 11%

10%

12% 13% 13% 12% 12% 10%

6%

5%

5%

10%

9%

7%

4%

4%

12% 13% 12% 11%

4%

3%

2%

3%

4%

6%

2%

1%

3%

7%

10% 13% 14% 13% 12% 13% 11%

2%

2%

2%

5%

10% 11%

11%

13% 11%

10% 10% 10% 11%

1%

2%

2%

5%

9%

9%

10%

9%

9%

10%

8%

8%

9%

9%

9%

8%

6%

5%

5%

3%

3%

3%

3%

1%

1%

1%

3%

7%

8%

8%

7%

8%

7%

6%

7%

7%

6%

7%

6%

5%

4%

4%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11

Mon 28
Tue 28
Wed 26
Thu 32
Fri 40Sat 122
Sun 107

19

6

31

141

365

766

834

603

599

597

640

723

840

991

1188 1303

976

687

426

258

160

77

63

15

12

30

155

372

797

984

702

647

705

671

750

877

981

1194 1329 1067

763

484

304

201

100

43

14

19

29

132

366

799

929

726

691

700

728

743

949

1015 1236 1319 1012

796

471

234

201

111

60

23

16

33

132

353

784

971

700

663

671

676

773

848 1072 1225 1228 1049

822

449

320

221

158

82

41

25

37

124

333

744

840

643

713

715

714

805

891 1063 1141 1165

948

696

496

391

247

197

85

96

59

62

75

120

184

323

599

759

877

763

807

885

854

817

799

714

546

385

265

203

147

131

134

80

84

57

83

111

259

510

730

832

686

602

684

656

706

685

633

490

360

244

140

110

130

12% 12% 10%

9%

7%

6%

4%

3%

3%

12% 12% 12% 11%

10%

8%

6%

6%

4%

3%

10% 12% 12% 13% 12% 10% 10%

8%

5%

5%

4%

3%

10% 10%

7%

7%

5%

5%

4%

8%

6%

6%

4%

3%

4%

11%

11%

8%

12% 11%

12% 11%

13% 13% 13% 12% 11%
11%12% 10%

9%

9%

7%

5%

4%

10%

8%

5%

5%

5%

4%

7%

5%

5%

3%

2%

2%

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

As a percentage of total road traffic serious injuries
Mon 2%
Tue 2%
Wed 2%
Thu 2%Fri 2%
Sat 3%Sun 2%
1

1%

1%

3%

7%

10% 11%

2%

1%

3%

9%

10% 12% 13% 12% 11%

11%

10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11%

1%

2%

3%

7%

10% 12% 13% 12% 12% 11%

11%

2%

1%

3%

7%

10% 12% 13% 12% 11%

11%

10% 11%

3%

2%

3%

6%

9%

11%

12% 11%

11%

10%

9%

10% 10% 10% 10%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

5%

7%

11%

11%

11%

9%

10%

9%

9%

8%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

2%

3%

8%

12% 13% 13%

9%

8%

8%

7%

8%

7%

7%

6%

6%

5%

3%

3%

3%

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 1111%

10% 11%

11%

11%

11%

12% 12% 11%9%7%

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Source: EU CARE database (available reports) EU27 countries, Norway and Switzerland, 2005-2010

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 145

The weekly pattern of serious injury crashes for European countries displayed in Figure 4.19 isconsistent with the weekly pattern for fatal crashes displayed in Figure 4.1. Serious injury crashes are
more likely to occur on weekdays (and on weekday evenings in particular). As with fatal crashes, there isa drop-off in serious injury crashes on the week-end as can be seen in Figure 4.23. Denmark and theNetherlands show a steeper drop-off than many other countries whereas Spain shows an atypical increaseon the week-end as with fatal crashes – possibly linked to recreational cycling. Unlike the Friday peakfor fatal bicycle crashes in Europe, serious injury crashes peak mid-week with Wednesday and Thursday
representing 16% of the total each. Questionnaire responses show that for Poland (Warsaw), the peakoccurs on Monday. Some countries e.g. Spain and Slovenia register their weekly peak on Sunday -- 16%of all serious injury bicycle crashes occur on Sunday in these two countries compared to 11% for all
European countries reporting this data. The recreational riding effect, displayed as a concentration ofserious injury crashes on Sunday morning in Figure 4.19 is visible as it is for fatal crashes in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.20 Percentage of all reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring by month, EU
All European countries below

Belgium

Denmark

Netherlands

Austria, Belgium, Croatia1, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Netherlands2, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden3, Switzerland 4 ,United Kingdom
20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

12007-2010, 2 2005-2009, 3 2005-2009, 42008-2010

Source: EU CARE database (selected countries), 2005-2010

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

146 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.21 Percentage of all reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring by time of day, EU
All European Countries below

Denmark

Netherlands

Spain

Austria, Belgium, Croatia1, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands 2,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden 3, Switzerland 4 , United Kingdom
15%

10%

5%

0%
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Time of day (hour)
1 2007-2010, 2 2005-2009, 3 2005-2009, 42008-2010

Source: EU CARE database (selected countries), 2005-2010

Figure 4.22 Seriously injured cyclists by light conditions at the time of crash in Europe
Daylight

Darkness

Twilight

Unknown

4% 2%
19%

75%

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010

Figure 4.19 also displays bicycle crash fatalities as a percentage of total traffic crash fatalities
according to month/day of week and hour for European countries. Whereas more serious injury bicycle
crashes occur in the late afternoon and evening, the share of bicycle serious injury crashes to total traffic
serious injury traffic is highest in the morning – serious injury bicycle crashes in the period from 06:00 to
10:00 account for 11% of all serious injury crashes during the same period whereas the corresponding
figure for the period from 16:00 to 20:00 is 9%.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 147

Figure 4.23 Percentage of all reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring by day of week, EU
all European countries below

Denmark

Netherlands

Spain

Austria, Belgium, Croatia1, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia,
Netherlands2, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden3, Switzerland4 , United Kingdom

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

1 2007-2010, 2 2005-2009, 3 2005-2009, 42008-2010

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010

What role do surface and atmospheric conditions play in serious injury crashes?
As with fatal bicycle crashes, most serious injury bicycle crashes recorded in the CARE databaseoccur in dry and clear conditions (86%), followed by rain (4%) and sleet (0.8%). Denmark andNetherlands report a much higher share of serious injury bicycle crashes occurring in the rain (10% and11%, respectively) likely linked to the fact that cyclists continue to ride in these countries, even in rainy
conditions.
Where do serious injury bicycle crashes occur?
Crash location
A smaller share of serious injury bicycle crashes occurs in rural areas as compared to fatal injury
bicycle crashes (Figure 4.24 and 4.7) and only in Spain do more serious injury crashes occur outside ofurban areas than in urban areas. One possible reason lower share of serious injury bicycle crashes
occurring outside of urban areas is that motor traffic speeds may be more elevated in rural areas and thus
motor-vehicle vs. bicycle crashes there may be more deadly.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

148 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.24 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring in urban vs. rural
areas and motorways in selected EU countries

44%

58%

55%

63%

58%

71%

67%

72%

Unknown

72%

75%

75%

77%

77%

79%

Motorway

77%

80%

80%

84%

Rural

82%

87%

85%

89%

87%

98%

Urban

*Croatia(2007-2010), Netherlands (2005-2009), Sweden (2005-2009), Switzerland (2008-2010)

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010*

Configuration of infrastructure
In Europe, about as many serious injury bicycle crashes occur inside of as outside of junctions (41%
and 40%, respectively) although a relatively small amount of total cycling (kilometres or time)
presumably occurs in junctions (Figure 4.25). The share of serious injury bicycle crashes that occurs injunctions is also higher than for fatal bicycle crashes (41% for the former versus 29% for the latter).
Some countries report that relatively few serious injury crashes occur in junctions (e.g. Slovenia – 14%)
whereas others report more serious injury crashes occurring within rather than outside of junctions (e.g.
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom with 62% and 59%, respectively, of all serious injury crashes
occurring inside of junctions. In questionnaire responses, Germany reported that only 20% of serious
injury crashes occurred in junctions and Denmark over 60%. As discussed previously, Germany likely
underreported the number of serious injury bicycle crashes occurring in junctions. In Denmark’s case,many of the crashes categorised as “other” in Figure 4.25 presumably occurred in some form of junction
in light of Denmark’s questionnaire response.
Overall, crossroads account for the highest share of junction-related serious injury crashes though insome countries, T-junction (or staggered junction) crashes are more frequent (e.g. in Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain and the United Kingdom). Roundabouts account for a
relatively significant share of all serious injury bicycle crashes in France (7%), the Netherlands (5%),
Spain (6%) and the United Kingdom (10%). Belgium reports an unusually high share of “other” crashlocations and an unusually low share of junction-related serious injury crashes – it seems likely thatmany of the latter are recorded in the former.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 149

Figure 4.25 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring atdifferent junction locations, EU
Total for all countries reporting crash location data
19%

13%
0%

31%

34%

14%
0%

42%

33%

Crossroad
8%

1%

68%

Roundabout

9%

T/staggered junction

Germany

Not at junction

Poland15%

Slovenia

5%

11%

Unknown

6%

43%
24%

2%
51%
53%

32%

Hungary

22%

18%

57%

6%

2%

16%

2%

Other

10%
0%

73%
3%

12%
1%

1%

Portugal

Spain
21%

25%

23%
30%

31%
38%
2%

20%
4% 52%

11%

14%

2%

4%

65%
55%

79%

Austria

Croatia

Denmark
1%

2%

33%

IcelandRomania
4%

12%

14%
1%

Sweden

29%
10%

10%
0%

37%

42%

21%

10%

10%

7%
20%

12%

31%
57%

56%

63%
66%

Belgium

Czech Republic

France66%

5%Netherlands

Slovakia

39%

United Kingdom*Croatia(2007-2010), Netherlands (2005-2009), Sweden (2005-2009), Switzerland (2008-2010)

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010*

Questionnaire responses addressed serious injury crashes occurring on and off of cycling-specificinfrastructure. In Belgium, France, and Poland injury crashes were less common on infrastructure
specifically designed for bicycles than on roads not marked with bicycle lanes – although, arguably,
more cycling occurs on cycling specific infrastructure. In Denmark, injury crashes were most common
on cycling lanes, followed by roads without marked lanes. This too, may reflect that most cycling occurs
on cycling lanes in Denmark.
Speed Limit
According to the CARE database, over half of all serious injury bicycle crashes in Europe occur onroads whose legal speed limit is below 30 km/hr (Figure 4.26). However, Germany reports an atypicallyhigh share of crashes occurring in this speed limit zone and this may bias the finding for all of Europe
since Germany accounts for 64% of all seriously injured bicycle crash victims where speed limits wererecorded in the CARE database. Excluding Germany, 67% of all serious injury bicycle crash victims
were injured on roads whose legal speed limit was between 30 and 50km/hr. Some countries (Ireland,
Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom) report a secondary peak on roads whose speed limits
were above 80km/hr – but at lower shares than for fatal bicycle crashes.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

150 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Figure 4.26 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes according to the legal speed limitof the main road involved in selected European countries
80%

Belgium73%

Croatia

Denmark

Germany

87%

57%

22%

25%
16%

6%

0%

9%

5%

0%

6%

Ireland

0%

9%

2%

0%

Netherlands
63%

0%

0%
79%

Switzerland

67%

1%

77%

0%

0%

Portugal

55%

16%

15%

5%

4%

28%

23%

1%

0%

Poland

53%

19%

0%

0%

0%

19%

13%

7%

3%

2%

United Kingdom

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Total
57%
30%

25%
8%

0%

0%

9%

1%

0%

10%
1%

7%

0%

3%

0%

2%

*Croatia(2007-2010), Netherlands (2005-2009), Switzerland (2008-2010)

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010*

Figure 1. Figure 4.27 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring with orwithout helmets in selected EU countries
Denmark

Slovak Republic 6%

17%

Total (these countries)

Switzerland

With helmet

27%
40%

20%

Without helmet

34%

Not applicable
Note recorded

73%

43%

0%

94%

FranceSlovenia
20%

15%

2%
14%

62%

45%
4%
51%

Croatia

9%

Czech Republic

16%

Portugal

Spain

2%

18%

32%

37%

57%
9%
91%

84%

45%

*Croatia(2007-2010), Switzerland (2008-2010)

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010*CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 151

Use of bicycle helmets
Bicycle helmet use was reported by only 20% of all seriously injured cyclists in those countries
reporting on crash helmet use in serious injury bicycle crashes (Figure 4.27). Spain and Switzerland
reported the highest use of bicycle helmets for seriously injured cyclists (37% and 27% respectively)
whereas Portugal, the Slovak Republic and Croatia report the lowest use (2%, 6% and 9%, respectively).
Crash typeAs with fatal bicycle crashes, most serious injury bicycle crashes for which crash type was recorded
involved another vehicle though some countries report a significant number of single vehicle bicycle
crashes resulting in serious injury (e.g. in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Switzerland, single
vehicle bicycle crashes result in over 25% of recorded seriously injured cyclists).
Figure 4.28 Percentage of all police-reported serious injury bicycle crashes occurring with orwithout a crash opponent, EU
Single vehicle crash without obstacle

5%

34%

1% 10%
1% 24%

Single vehicle crash with obstacle

6%
29%

4%

8%
4%

15%

5%

18%

16%

2%

Not a single vehicle crash

1%

1%

17%

6%

8%
3%

1%

33%

5%

1%
5%

94%

94%

89%

66%

72%

88%
71%

94%

84%

82%

83%

93%

89%
78%
62%

Source: EU CARE database, various year ranges

Collision opponent
According to questionnaire responses from Belgium, Denmark France (Paris City) and Spain, motor
vehicles were the principal crash opponent in a majority of bicycle collisions resulting in serious injury(Table 4.1). Passenger cars dominate motor vehicle collision opponents in serious injury bicycle crashes
but goods vehicles (especially light goods vehicles) and motorised 2-wheelers account for a notinsignificant share as well as seen in Figure 4.14.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

152 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Table 4.1. Serious injury cycling collision crash involvement/opponent
MotorvehicleBicyclePedestrian

AnimalObjectBelgium

87%

5%

4%

0%

4%

Denmark

92%

5%

2%

0%

1%

France (Paris City)

75%

0%

21%

Spain

72%

0%

2%

0%

3%

Train

Other

0%
22%

Source: questionnaire responses

Manoeuvre
As with CARE data for fatal crashes, data relating to cyclist manoeuvre for serious injury crashes
should be treated with caution since those crashes for which manoeuvre was recorded only account for
29% of all seriously injured cyclists. For crashes where manoeuvre was recorded, most involved acyclists proceeding straight forward or otherwise riding normally (Figure 4.29).
Figure 4.29 Manoeuvre by cyclist for serious injury bicycle crashes where pre-crash manoeuvre was
identified and recorded, selected EU countries
Austria

FranceIceland

Spain

37%
79%

29%

78%
97%

15% 14%
14%

4%

1

2

3

0% 0% 0% 0%

4 5 6
Belgium

7

8

9

75%

1

3

4

5 6
Greece

7

8

9

50%

2

5%

0% 0% 4% 0% 2% 0%

3

4 5 6
Denmark

7

8

9

8%

1

1

2

3

13%
4%

0%

4 5 6
Hungary

4% 4%

7

8

6% 2% 0%0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%

23

4 5 6 7
Netherlands

8

9

1

14%

88%

1

1% 1% 1% 0%

3 4 5 6 7
United Kingdom

893% 7% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

9

2

12%

86%

80%

17%

14%

1

2

3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

2

3

4 5 6
Portugal

7

8

9

69%

1

2

3 4 5 6 7 8
Total (these countries)

9

81%

98%

8

9

Reversing7

U turn6Overtaking vehicle on its right5

Overtaking vehicle on its left

4

Changing lane3

Slowing or stopping

2

Turning left

1

Turning right9

Straight forward/normal driving

8

Reversing7

U turn6Overtaking vehicle on its right5

Overtaking vehicle on its left

4

Changing lane3

Slowing or stopping

2

Turning left

1

9% 5%
2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0%

3% 6% 1% 1% 0% 0% 7%

Turning right9

Straight forward/normal driving

8

Reversing7

U turn6Overtaking vehicle on its right5

Overtaking vehicle on its left

4

Changing lane3

Slowing or stopping

2

Turning left

1

Turning right90% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Straight forward/normal driving

8

Reversing7

U turn6Overtaking vehicle on its right5

Overtaking vehicle on its left

4

Changing lane3

Slowing or stopping

2

Turning left

Straight forward/normal driving

1

13%2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%Turning right9%

Source: EU CARE database, 2005-2010

Questionnaire responses provide further insight into serious injury crash manoeuvre in certain
countries. In Belgium injury collisions with vehicles most often occurred in a junction with the bicycle
being hit by the motor vehicle during a turn (by the motor vehicle - 13%). The next most frequent
manoeuvres were the bicycle being hit when approaching the motor vehicle from a different street (11%)
or sideswiped by the motor vehicle during a turn (10%).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 153

In Denmark injury collisions with vehicles most often occurred in a junction when the bicycle or
motor vehicle was turning right or left and collided with through-traffic coming from the right or the left(22%). In light of CARE data (Figure 4.29), it seems that in most cases, the motor vehicle was turning at
the time of crash (since Denmark reports that relatively few cyclists were turning when the crashoccurred). The next most frequent crash-causing manoeuvres were in a junction when the bicycle and the
motor vehicle were approaching the same junction from different streets (17%), and when the motor
vehicle was turning nearside and sideswiped a cyclist who may also have been turning to the nearside or(in most cases) going straight ahead (13%).
In Paris City, collisions with motor vehicles most often occurred when either the motor vehicle or
the bicycle sideswiped the other while travelling in the same direction (26%). The next most frequent
manoeuvre was when the motor vehicle was turning to the nearside and sideswiped a cyclist who may
also be turning to the nearside or (in most cases) going straight ahead (19%).
Contributing actions by cyclists or motorists
According to questionnaire responses, the cyclist was reported to be at fault in 40% of injury
crashes in Spain, whose data are based on two provinces for this variable only, and 31% of injury crashes
in France. In Denmark, cyclists did not have right of way in 16% of injury crashes. As with fault in fatal
crashes, these figures may be a result of different right-of-way practices and rules in the countries
considered.
4.4

Discussion

For many variables, especially those concerning timing of crashes, patterns were fairly consistentacross respondent countries. Many exceptions in crash timing data could be understood in terms ofdifferent climatic conditions or diurnal patterns in different countries. These findings appear to indicatethat a fairly consistent approach can be taken to interventions aiming to improve cycling safety as
concerns when crashes occur.
Patterns were also fairly similar for fatal and injury crashes – except for variables which are likely
to influence crash severity, such as speed limit zone and crash location (junction vs. non-junction).
Data showed that most crashes occur during daylight, but the rise in fatal crashes at dusk, both inabsolute numbers and as a share of overall traffic fatalities, underscores the sensitive nature of thistransition period. Better lighting (streets and bicycles) and better conspicuity by cyclists may help in
reducing these numbers – as might raising motor vehicle driver awareness.
Unsurprisingly, crashes appear to be more common during peak travel periods (in the morning,
middle of the day, and afternoon). For fatal crashes, the afternoon-early evening peak seems to begenerally more of a problem in Europe than in the USA but it is the morning period that represents thehighest share of bicycle to total traffic fatalities in Europe. Variability amongst countries seems at least
partially linked to the amount of utilitarian (and therefore less compressible) cycling that takes place.
There are other differences amongst countries as well – for example, in the UK, crashes that occur during
the night are more likely to be fatal (Knowles et al., 2009), whereas in Spain, fatal crashes peak later atnight than in many other countries (likely reflecting local travel patterns).
Generally, there are a lower proportion of crashes (both fatal crashes and injury crashes) on theweekend than during the week, and this is consistent with recent UK data (Knowles et al., 2009). Key
exceptions were that fatal crashes are most common on the Saturdays and Sundays in Australia, and on
Sunday in Spain. It is probable that the different pattern in these countries is because cycling is used lessCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

154 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

as a mode of transport than in the other countries (Loo and Tsui, 2010) and that the crashes involve
mostly recreational cyclists. It is also possible that these countries have more of a weekend drinking
culture and/or offer a poorer cycling environment which is less forgiving of impairment-related errors.

Box 4.2 Results from Bicycle Crash Micro-Analysis in Korea
Under the recent reform of the national traffic safety law in Korea, traffic safety audits have become mandatory on
newly constructed roads as well as on existing roads. As part of these audits, a team of researchers from the Korea
Transportation Safety Authority investigated detailed bicycle crash data for 30 road sections comprising some form of bicycle
infrastructure in 13 municipalities covering the period 2003-2007. Eight bicycle crash “hotspots” were identified and further
field studies were undertaken to identify contributory and causal factors.
The review of police records and the field investigation found that most crashes occurred as cyclists were crossing themain road or a side road and identified 5 principal crash-contributing factors and identified crash-reduction actions for each:Line of sight obstruction for motorists: Trees, pillars, safety fences, bridge-rails, subway entrances blocked
motorists’ capacity to detect cyclists. Authorities should inventory visual obstructions that reduce the visibilityof cyclists and remove or otherwise alter these.

Road geometry: wide road curve radii made it hard for motorists to see bicycles. The answer here is to reduce
the width of the road (e.g. by installing a traffic island or narrowing the road) or otherwise slow down motor
vehicle traffic to allow motorists to see and react to cyclists’ presence.



Poor nightime visibility of cyclists: Lack of illumination and non-reflective attire of cyclists limited motorist’s
ability to detect cyclists at night. One response is to ensure adequate lighting at bicycle crossings or on routes
with high numbers of cyclists. Another is to encourage or mandate the use of lighting and/or reflective
clothing at night by cyclists.

Poor junction recognisability: Cross walks and bicycle crossings may be hard to identify by motorists,
especially when they are positioned after a high-speed road segment or a tight curve. Further, bicycle
infrastructure lacked roadway markings that would have providing motorists with a visual cue to theirpresence (see figure below). Adequate Speed management for motor vehicle traffic is called for along withadequate signage and street markings warning motorists of the presence of cyclists.

Insufficient road crossing infrastructure: Pedestrian and bicycle road crossings often feature traffic islands inthe middle to allow non-motorised users refuge while crossing. These were found to be undersized and should
be designed to handle more cyclists caught out during short traffic signal cycles.

Before: Discontinuous cycle track marking

Suggested treatment: Mark continuity and increase visibility

Source: CHOE, Byongho, KIM, Hyunjin and JUNG, Minyeong – “Study on improved measures on bicycle safety
through accident investigation as presented to KOTI-ITF Bicycle safety Seminar(http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Proceedings/Cycling2011/Choe.pdf, accessed 24 September 2013)CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 155

There is a clear pattern for crashes (both fatal crashes and injury crashes) to be most common in thewarmer months, and least common in winter. In Australia the peak for fatal crashes is in spring rather
than summer (when it may sometimes be too hot for people to cycle), and in Belgium it is in spring. In
Denmark the peak for injury crashes is in autumn. These patterns most likely reflect cycling exposure.
Countries with high levels of utilitarian cycling show less month-on-month variability but show asummer-holiday-related drop-off in fatalities and serious injuries.
Although wet or icy surface conditions may present a crash risk, most crashes (both fatal crashes
and injury crashes) occur in dry surface conditions, presumably because this is when the most cycling
occurs. Bicycle fatalities and serious injuries in inclement weather are highest in countries with highlevels of cycling, most likely reflecting exposure.
Fatal and serious injury crashes are typically more common in metropolitan than in nonmetropolitan areas. This may be because most cycling takes place in urban areas in most, but not all,countries. For fatal crashes, a minority of countries demonstrated a reversal in this pattern, whereas
crashes were roughly evenly distributed across metropolitan and non-metropolitan or more common in
non-metropolitan areas. For injury crashes all respondent countries adhered to the general pattern,although some countries, such as Belgium and Spain, have relatively more injury crashes in nonmetropolitan areas than other countries. These patterns are likely to reflect where the most cycling
occurs, in combination with the density and speed of traffic in these areas. Thus, in Belgium and Spain
may have a greater amount of cycling in non-metropolitan areas than other countries, and crashes inthese areas might often be fatal due to high traffic speed. For example, in Denmark, Germany, theNetherlands and the United Kingdom, urban areas accounted for 84%, 81%, 79% and 86%, respectively,of combined killed and seriously injured cyclists whereas non-urban areas accounted for adisproportionate 36%, 41%, 37% and 40%, respectively, of all killed cyclists.
Where it is reported, police-reported crashes are less common on cycling-specific infrastructure thanon infrastructure that is not cycling-specific – although arguably the cycling-specific infrastructure
carries more cycle traffic, particularly in some countries. This is consistent with the most recent UK data
showing that 97% of cyclists involved in collisions resulting in a serious injury or fatality were on themain carriageway and only 2% on a marked cycling lane on the main carriageway (Knowles et al., 2009).
Presumably this reflects a safety benefit conferred by various aspects of cycling-specific infrastructure –such as separation from traffic, lower speeds and speed differentials, and fewer junctions (see below).
Another possibility untested by the working group is that this finding may also reflect a bias in thepolice-reported data. For example, in Australia, crashes are only reported to police if they occur on a road(including a bicycle lane on a road). It is noteworthy that in Denmark injury crashes are more common
on on-road bicycle lanes than on roads not marked with bicycle lanes – perhaps reflecting exposure.
Police-reported crashes generally represent a minority of all injury crashes as discussed in Chapter 1 –given the lack of data on overall injury rates (police reported, hospital recorded and minor injuries), wecannot assume that these findings also hold for mild injury crashes.
The general pattern was for most fatal and injury crashes to occur in low speed limit zones which islikely to reflect greater cycling exposure in these speed limit zones. For fatal crashes in particular, there
was a second peak in high speed zones, presumably reflecting higher chance of fatality for crashes
occurring at higher speeds. In the United States, the share of fatal bicycle crashes occurring in low-speed
zones was lower than in Europe – possibly because low-speed traffic calmed zones are relatively lesscommon in the United States.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

156 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIESAbout one-quarter of all fatal crashes occurred within junctions for European countries reporting
this data though there is great variability amongst countries. Korea and the United States report higher
shares of junction-related crashes. Figures from Australia are lower perhaps reflecting the greater shareof fatal bicycle crashes in non-metropolitan areas where there are presumably fewer junctions. For
Europe, non-junction areas account for a proportionately greater share of fatal (64%) than serious injury
bicycle crashes (40%). Likewise junctions account for a smaller percentage of fatal (29%) versus serious
injury (41%) bicycle crashes. There are many possible reasons why this should be. The first is that motor
vehicle speeds are typically higher outside junctions than in junctions and thus when non-junction
crashes occur, the consequences are likely to be more serious for cyclists. There is also the issue of
exposure given that more cycling presumably takes place outside of junctions than in junctions. In that
respect, however, the significant share of fatal and serious injury crashes that still occur within junctions
are significant given that relatively little overall time spent cycling occurs within junctions thus
highlighting the relative risks posed by junctions.
Research on factors associated with junction versus non-junction crashes highlight a number ofother contributory factors. The first is that a great many crashes occurring in junctions can be classified
as “looked but failed to see”. There is a significant body of research6 indicating that motor vehicle
operators have a tendency to scan junctions for major dangers to themselves (other motor vehicles) at theexpense of more vulnerable users. The greater the approach speed of the vehicle, the stronger thistendency. Internationally comparable data on specific bicycle and collision opponent manoeuvre
according to crash location is lacking but it would appear that overtaking and rear-end collisions are asignificant problem (Chih-Wei 2011) – e.g. accounting for half of all fatal UK two-vehicle bicycle
crashes for the years 2005-2011. A reasonable assumption is that these types of crashes occur more
frequently outside of junctions (and in low light conditions) though this is an untested hypothesis.
Differences among helmet-wearing rates for deceased or seriously injured cyclists are likely largely
due to national helmet-wearing rates. It is notable that for countries reporting this variable, helmet use
among deceased cyclists seems slightly, but consistently lower, than for seriously injured cyclists
suggesting the protective effects of helmets. One notable exception is Spain where 39% of deceased
cyclists were reported to be wearing a helmet compared to 37% of seriously injured cyclists – reflecting
perhaps the fact that many sports-recreational cyclists (more amenable to wearing a helmet) wereinvolved in fatal crashes as suggested by other Spanish data. Rivara, Thompson, and Thompson (1997)
report that 51% of cyclists treated in the emergency department or dying from bicycle related injuries in
Seattle were not wearing a helmet.
Although most respondent countries reported that the vast majority of fatal and injury crashes werecollisions rather than falls, this may partly reflect a sampling bias in the police-recorded data, because
collisions are more likely to involve another party. As discussed in Chapter 1, collisions are also more
likely to be severe than falls, particularly because collisions are most commonly with motor vehicles.
Heavy goods vehicles were the most common crash opponent following passenger cars for many
countries. Comparing the involvement of trucks in fatal versus serious injury crashes reveals thedisproportionate risk of death for cyclists in truck-bicycle collisions and the need to address these typesof crashes. Light goods vehicles and motorised two wheelers are also significant crash opponents in somecountries, in some cases figuring more frequently than heavy goods vehicles.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 157

It is difficult to draw a general conclusion regarding cyclist vs. motorist “fault” in fatal and serious
injury bicycle crashes across all countries due to the limited amount of available and comparable data.
Cyclists were reported to be at fault in 60% of fatal crashes in Australia, and 40% in Spain. However,these percentages probably exaggerate the role of cyclists, given that the cyclist is not available to give
their point of view. In Denmark, where the operationalisation of fault is more objective (not having rightof way) the percentage is lower (24%). Rowe, Rowe, and Bota (1995) report that amongst cyclist
fatalities in Ontario, bicyclist error was the most common cause of crash for bicyclists aged less than 10
years (79%), bicyclists aged 10 to 19 years (55%) and bicyclists aged 45 years or more (44%), whereas
motorist error was the most common cause of crash for bicyclists aged 20 to 44 years (63%).
Data from the United States indicate that cyclists were imputed with an improper action in 68% of
fatal bicycle crashes (though, as noted earlier, this may be biased as the cyclist was not able to give theirversion of events). Of these improper actions, failure to follow traffic rules and yield right-of-way weremost commonly cited. Furthermore, one quarter of (deceased) cyclists for which an alcohol test was
performed returned blood alcohol values above 0.08 mg/ltr which constitutes a drink-driving offense in
all 50 US States.
Motorist fault is also evident in the US data, and the prominent role of hit-and-run crashes involving
cyclists (17% of all killed cyclists) is noteworthy. Motorists were charged with traffic violations in nearly
one third of all fatal bicycle crashes and investigating officers identified a crash-contributing factor on
the part of the motorist in over half of all fatal bicycle crashes.
Most fatal and serious injury crashes in Europe involved the cyclist travelling straight ahead orotherwise riding normally though pre-crash manoeuvre was recorded for only half of all fatal crashes and
29% of all serious injury crashes. Although the order varied slightly for different countries and for
different crash severities, the next most common manoeuvres in bicycle crashes involved the bicycle
either turning offside (across oncoming motor traffic) or nearside (with traffic). These manoeuvres areroughly consistent with recorded pre-crash manoeuvres in the US. As noted earlier, there is someevidence that overtaking and rear-end collisions are a significant problem as well – especially in low
light conditions.
4.5

Limitations

Exposure is not completely controlled (because of inadequacy of exposure data). Whilst
presentation of crash numbers as a percentage of all crashes addresses overall participation rates,
improving the comparability of different countries, it does not account for different levels of exposure todifferent conditions. Thus, many of the observed patterns reflect exposure rather than riskiness. For
example, we observed a general tendency for more crashes to happen during the warmer months,
probably mostly because more cycling happens during the warmer months. In fact, it may be more risky(per kilometre) to ride in winter when roads are icy or wet. Nonetheless, from a problem identification,and resource allocation, perspective, it is arguably most important when/where the most crashes occur.
All countries provide police-reported data, which is unlikely to be representative of all crashes. For
some variables in particular there are likely to be strong selection biases. For example, collisions are far
more likely to be reported to police than falls.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

158 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIESFor some variables, particularly in the case of injury crashes, data was returned by too few countries
to draw very broad conclusions. For some variables, aggregate crash databases (e.g. CARE, FARS, UK
DFT) are not strictly comparable since data definitions may differ. The cycling environment isundoubtedly very different in different member countries and aggregate databases may not haveadequately captured country-level heterogeneity.
For questionnaire responses, even the countries that were able to return data could not return acomplete data set – highlighting the importance of improving the collection of information regarding
cycling-related crashes worldwide. As already mentioned the availability of exposure information could
also be improved.
4.6

Conclusions

Cycling crashes are most likely when exposure is likely to be greatest: during peak travel periods (inthe morning, middle of the day, and afternoon), during the week in countries where cycling is a typicalmode of transport (and otherwise on the weekend), during seasons when the weather is most conducive
to cycling, when the cycling surface is dry, in metropolitan areas, and in low speed limit zones (4060kmph). The share of fatal and serious injury crashes is relatively more elevated in low-light conditionsin the early evening. These crashes are also more common at night than exposure data might otherwise
lead one to expect. Addressing urban lighting, cyclist conscipuity and motorist training may be helpful in
reducing these crashes. There is an argument for directing resources to improve cycling safety in thesituations described above.
There are some important exceptions to this general rule of thumb, with implications forintervention design. Fatal and serious crashes are less common on cycling-specific infrastructure than on
infrastructure that is not cycling-specific – indicating perhaps the value of providing cycling-specificinfrastructure. A higher proportion of fatal and serious crashes than would be expected on the basis of
exposure occur in junctions – indicating the risk posed by junctions and the need for care when designing
junctions to be cycling-friendly. There is also some suggestion that fatal crashes are more common in 7080kmph zones than would be expected on the basis of exposure alone – highlighting the value of speed
management as “hidden infrastructure” that protects cyclists.
Collisions appear to be more common than falls, and collisions with motor vehicles most commonof all for fatal and serious crashes. Although this is may partly reflect a sampling bias in the policerecorded data, because collisions with motor vehicles are likely to have the most serious outcomes andthus warrant attention in interventions to improve cycling safety. Truck-bicycle crashes are a particularly
serious problem in many countries highlighting a need for continued focus on avoiding these crashes andreducing their severity.
Both cyclists and motorists share some level of fault in fatal and serious injury crashes. There may
be a bias against adequately reflecting cyclist fault in fatal bicycle-motor vehicle crashes as the cyclist is
most likely to be the victim and thus unable to provide essential information. Training of police in crash
reporting for bicycle crashes may address this bias if countries determine it exists.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES – 159

Key Messages
Patterns timing of crashes were fairly consistent across respondent countries. Many exceptions in crashtiming data could be understood in terms of different climatic conditions or diurnal patterns in different
countries. These findings appear to indicate that a fairly consistent approach can be taken to interventions
aiming to improve cycling safety as concerns when crashes occur.



Data showed that most crashes occur during daylight and were more common during peak travel periods
consistent with the highest volumes of bicycle travel. Likewise, there is a clear pattern for crashes (both fatal
crashes and injury crashes) to be most common in the warmer months, and least common in winter. All ofthese patterns most likely reflect cycling exposure.

Overall crashes are more common in metropolitan than non-metropolitan areas, reflecting also where mostcycling occurs. Some countries report higher rates of fatalities outside of urban areas indicating perhaps
greater motor vehicle speeds or greater recreational cycling levels.



Limited responses from the questionnaire indicate that police-reported crashes are less common on cyclingspecific infrastructure than on infrastructure that is not cycling-specific – although arguably the cyclingspecific infrastructure carries more cycle traffic in responding countries.

More fatal bicycle crashes occur outside of junctions than inside ntersections in most countries – this may belinked to exposure (more cycling) or motor vehicle speeds. Nonetheless, a still significant proportion ofserious and fatal crashes occur at junctions. This is more than would be expected on the basis of exposure atjunctions – indicating the risk posed by junctions and the need for care when designing junctions to be
cycling-friendly.

The general pattern was for most fatal and injury crashes to occur in low speed limit zones (outside of theUS, which is likely to reflect greater cycling exposure in these speed limit zones. For fatal crashes inparticular, there was a second peak in 70-80kmph zones, presumably reflecting higher chance of fatality forcrashes occurring at higher speeds and highlighting the value of speed management as “hidden
infrastructure” that protects cyclists.

Although most respondent countries reported that the vast majority of fatal and injury crashes werecollisions rather than falls, this may partly reflect a sampling bias in the police-recorded data, because
collisions are more likely to result in serious injury and/or involve another party.

Insufficient data exists to make a broad finding relating to relative fault though there is evidence that cyclists
and motorists both contribute to incorrect crash-causing actions. Lack of cyclist input in fatal bicycle crashinvestigations may result in biased outcomes.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013160 – 4. OVERVIEW OF BICYCLE CRASH CHARACTERISTICS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Notes

1.

CARE and FARS report deaths occurring within 30 days of the road crash based mainly on official
police records.

2.

For example, while Germany indicated only 20% of fatal crashes occurring in junctions in thequestionnaire responses, the German police-reported data on crash location often does not specify
location. Thus 20% is likely an underestimate. Studies made by BASt (the German Federal Highway
Research Institute) suggest that up to 50% of fatal bicycle crashes may occur at intersections. CARE
data for Germany reflect this finding.

3.

Countries reporting on HGV crash involvement accounted for 82% of bicycle crash fatalities in the
CARE database over the same period.

4.

Countries reporting on LGV crash involvement accounted for 70% of bicycle crash fatalities in the
CARE database over the same period.

5.

Full reporting of serious injury crashes in the CARE database is less consistent than that of fatal
bicycle crashes – only 11% of fatal bicycle crashes have unknown crash hour or month fields
whereas this percentage is nearly 50% for serious injury crashes.

6.

See (Chih-Wei 2011) for a discussion of this research.

References

Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Deaths of cyclists due to road crashes. Australian Transport Safety
Bureau (2006)
Chih-Wei, Pai. “Overtaking, rear-end and door crashes involving bicycles: An empirical investigation.” Accident
Analysis and Prevention 43, no. 3 (2011): 1228-1235.
Knowles J, Adams S, Cuerden R, Savil T, Reid S, Tight M. Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain's roads:
establishing the causes. PRR 445 TRL (2009)
Loo BPY, Tsui KL. Bicycle crash casualties in a highly motorized city. Accident Analysis and Prevention
42:1902-1907 (2010).
NHTSA. Traffic Safety Facts, 2009 Data, Bicyclists and Other Cyclists. DOT HS 811 386 US Department ofTransportation (2009).
Rivara FP, Thompson DC, Thompson RS. Epidemiology of bicycle injuries and risk factors for serious injury.
Injury Prevention 3: 110-114 (1997)
Rowe BH, Rowe AM, Bota GW. Bicyclist and environmental factors associated with fatal bicycle-related trauma in
Ontario. Canadian Medical Association Journal 152: 45-53 (1995).
Stutts JC, Hunter, WW. Motor vehicle and roadway factors in pedestrian and bicyclist injuries: an examination
based on emergency department data. Accident Analysis and Prevention 5: 505-514 (1999).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 161

5. Review of bicycle safety measures

This chapter investigates the documented safety or safety-related behavioural effects of a number ofbicycle safety measures and interventions based on the recent international research.

5.1

Introduction

This chapter reviews a wide range of infrastructural as well as non-infrastructural bicycle safetymeasures. Whenever it is possible, the estimated safety effect will be presented as a percentage potential
crash reduction. The main source of this information is the Handbook of Road Safety Measures from theInstitute of Transport Economics in Oslo, Norway (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009). We select this source since
it assesses crash-reduction effects on the basis of peer-reviewed literature and comprehensive safety
studies. Where applicable, we complement this information with evidence from other research.
We also note a few promising measures that may improve bicycle safety but for which the safetyimproving effect is undocumented or lacking at present. Also important to note is that many bicycle
safety assessments evaluate changes in behaviours that are known or strongly suspected to contribute toincreased crashes and injuries (Helman, et al. 2011). These studies may not provide data on crash rates
but are helpful nonetheless in detecting risky behaviours that may result in collisions. Where applicable,
we highlight these results in this chapter.
Assessment of the effectiveness of safety measures to some extent will depend on local or national
preconditions such as:Culture and traditions

Legislation



Existing infrastructure

Bicycling culture varies from one country to another. In some countries a bicycle is primarily ameans of transport, and people bike because it is cheap, or because it is an efficient and easy way ofgetting to work or to school or going shopping. In other countries cycling is mainly a leisure activity –something cyclists only do on weekends. Likewise the style of biking varies. In some countries cyclists
are more sport-oriented and tend to travel very fast on their bikes, while in other countries cycling isslower and more utilitarian. Street environments may also differ across countries, in India (see Annex 2)
for instance informal sector stands and activities may dominate street sides whereas in others these
activities are uncommon and/or forbidden.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

162 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Also, as seen in Chapter 2, traffic rules may vary from one country to another. Safety measures –especially infrastructural measures – showing good results in some countries may not even be possible todeploy on a legal basis in other countries.
In some countries for instance cyclists are allowed to use the sidewalk if there is no bicycle track
present, and then bicycles have to give way when descending from the sidewalk (when passing a sideroad). In other countries bicycles are expected to use the same traffic areas as any other motorised or
non-motorised vehicle, if no bicycle track or other designated infrastructure for bicyclists is present, andriding on the sidewalk is strictly forbidden.
Control and enforcement of traffic laws and explicit regulatory treatment of cycling may also differ
greatly from city-to-city and between countries. In one country, motor vehicle intrusion onto cycling
infrastructure or facilities may be ignored or tolerated by police whereas in others these same practices
may result in severe fines or other penalties.
Figure 5.1 Different types of bicycles – and different types of bicyclists

Photo credit: Authors

These observed differences should not be exaggerated in most cases when measures to improvesafety for cyclists are being planned and decided upon. For OECD countries, the bulk of traffic rules
pertaining to road use by bicycles are largely harmonised. Bicycles are expected to follow the same
traffic rules as any other vehicle and the rules concerning right-of-way for motor vehicles normally apply
for cyclists too. However, rules pertaining to the use of, and conduct upon, cycle tracks/paths/lanes may
differ as may cyclist and/or motorist familiarity with such infrastructure (see Chapter 2).
What follows in this chapter a description of the documented safety effects of various bicycle safetymeasures that generally pertain to most OECD countries. Many of the examples of safety-improving
measures in this section are drawn from European contexts but it is telling that official or informal
standards relating to bicycle infrastructure largely build upon European experience (See for example the
US National Association of City Transportation Official’s – NACTO – Urban Bikeway Design Guide or
the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and National Police Authority
Guidelines for Creating a Safe and Comfortable Environment for Cyclists).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 163

In this chapter we describe the safety effect of individual measures. It is not always the case that theeffects of individual measures are additive – the ultimate safety effect of multiple measures deployed on
one site will largely depend on site-specific interactions. For this reason, the selection andimplementation of bicycle safety measures should be based on a site-specific diagnosis and identificationof the safety problems to be treated (see section 5.6). Bicycle safety audits as deployed in a number ofcountries and/or cities can be helpful in this respect (see Box 5.1).
It is also important to note that the aggregate safety effects of an extensive segregated bicycle
infrastructure network may contradict the evidence of the safety performance of its component parts(Reid and Adams 2010). For instance, the Netherlands and Denmark have both deployed extensive
networks of segregated bicycle tracks (along with other bicycle infrastructure types) which, according tosome evidence on the safety impacts of segregated bicycle tracks, might result in lower bicycle safety
due to conflicts at junctions. Yet the evidence regarding aggregate levels of bicycle safety in these (andother countries having deployed similar networks) indicates that these countries typically have (much)better bicycle safety performance than countries lacking such networks (see, for example Figure 3.12).
Why this should be is not clearly evident from the study of the safety impacts of individual measures andthere are few peer-reviewed studies looking to explain this phenomenon. Those that do, for example,(Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010) (Pucher and Buehler 2008) (Ligtermoet 2009) and (Pucher, Buehler andSeinen 2011), note that the aggregate bicycle safety performance of these countries is based on theinteraction of a number of factors, including:

Political willingness and a regulatory environment that prioritises bicycle traffic.

Sustained investment in a complete network of high quality bicycle facilities over several
decades.



Traffic calming and speed control on residential streets.

Supportive land use planning.

Extensive and early traffic training on the use of bicycle facilities and the rules governing
bicycle-motor vehicle interactions.



Timely and targeted interventions to address safety blackspots.



Coordinated policies that increase the numbers of cyclists while increasing their safety.

These factors should be borne in mind when reading through this chapter. It is unlikely that
implementing only one type, or a limited set, of the measures described in the following pages will raise
aggregate bicycle safety measures – but the coordinated, targeted and extensive deployment of many
bicycles safety measures, along with other interventions as described above, can result in better systemwide bicycle safety performance.
5.2

Key considerations regarding the assessment of safety measures

Before discussing individual measures, it is worth addressing a few key issues that should be bornein mind when assessing the safety effect of individual measures. These relate to the presence ofconfounding factors impacting safety, the implications of behavioural responses to safety-improving
measures and the need to differentiate between safety-improving measures and those that increase theperception of safety.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

164 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURESBox 5.1 Example of bicycle road safety audit and prompt lists (US Federal Highway Administration)
Several countries and cities have developed guidelines for bicycle-specific Road Safety Audits (RSAs) to help ensure thatcycling-specific concerns are addressed in road design or modification interventions. According to the United States Federal
Highway Administration,“RSAs can be used to help address the safety of cyclists by improving the understanding of boththe characteristics of cyclists and the factors that affect cyclist safety. An RSA is a formal safety
examination of an existing facility or future roadway plan or project that is conducted by anindependent, experienced, multidisciplinary team. RSAs are a cost-effective method to proactively
identify factors affecting safety and make suggestions on strategies and facilities to improve cyclist
safety and support a truly multimodal street network for all types of facilities.”(Nabors, et al. 2012)
Below is the RSA prompt list suggested by the United States Federal Highway Administration:
Road safety audit intervention zone
A. Street/path

1.

B. Structures

C. Junctions,crossings andinterchanges

D. Transitions

E. Public Transport

Are junctions/interchange
accommodations
designed to reduce
conflicting
movements andcommunicate proper
bicycle positioning
through thecrossing?

Are transition areas
designed with logicaltermini or do they
end abruptly,
potentiallycontributing tosudden and difficult
merges, midblockcrossings, or
behaviors such as
wrong way riding?

Are public transportfacilities designed
and placed tominimize conflicts
with other modes?

Do traffic operations(especially during
peak periods) createa safety concern for
cyclists?

Do shared roadwaygeometries change
substantially or
frequently?

Are public transportfacilities designed
and placed tominimize conflicts
with other modes?

Are there any
obstacles atcrossings?
Are the manhole
covers properly
designed?

Is there an abruptchange in riding
surface?

Are public transport
stops maintained
during periods ofinclement weather?

Presence and availability
Are cyclists accommodated?

2.

Design and placement
Are design features
present thatadversely impact theuse of the facility by
cyclists?

3.

Are bridges/ tunnels
designed withadequate bicycle
accommodations on
both sides?
Does the gradient of
the cycling
accommodations
impact the use of the
facility?

Operations
Are there suitable provisions for cyclists
given the characteristics of the roadway orpath (speed, volume, traffic, and functionalclassification)?
Do access management practices detractfrom cycling safety?

4.

Quality and conditions
Is the riding surface
smooth, stable, andfree of debris and isdrainage adequate?
Are drainage grates
designed for
cyclists?

Is the grating/bridge
surface designed for
cyclists?
Is drainage adequate
to accommodate
bicyclists?
Are there
longitudinal ortransverse joints that
may cause cyclists
problems?

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 165

5.

Obstructions
Are there any
horizontal or verticalobstructions (incl.
temporary) along thefacility?

6.

Is there adequate
horizontal andvertical clearance?

If bollards or other physical terminal devices
are used, is the risk of occasional motorized
vehicles greater than the risk of a fixed object
within the travel way?

Is the waiting area
free of temporary/
permanent
obstructions that
constrict its width orblock access to thebus stop?

Are railings,
guardrail, and/or
parapets and otherstructures installed at
an appropriate heightand shy distance?

If bollards or other physical terminal devices
are used, is the risk of occasional motorized
vehicles greater than the risk of a fixed object
within the travel way?

Are bicycle
accommodations
connected andconvenient for public
transport users?

Are bicycle
accommodations
continuous, or dothey end abruptly at
bridge/tunnel
crossings?

Are bicycle
accommodations
continuous, or dothey end abruptly atcrossings/ junctions/interchanges?

Are crossings
convenient and freeof potential hazards
for cyclists?

Are bridges andtunnels adequatelylit?

Are the junction/transition and paths
leading to the transition adequately lit?

Are transit accessways and facilities
adequately lit?

Can cyclists see
approachingvehicles/ pedestrians,
and vice versa?

Can cyclists see
approachingvehicles/ pedestrians
at all legs of ajunction/ crossing,and vice versa?

Is the visibility ofcyclists as they makethe transition fromone facility or
roadway geometry toanother adequate
from the perspectiveof all road users?

Is the visibility ofcyclists using thefacility adequate
from the perspectiveof all road users?

Do signs andmarkings along thecycling facility
clearly indicate thecyclist path andright-of-way atjunctions?

Are signs andmarkings at
transition areas
appropriate?

Are signs andmarkings at
designated areas for
cyclists using transit
appropriate?

Roadside
Is the clear zone forcyclists’ operating
space adequate?

7.

Continuity and connectivity
Are bicycle
accommodations
continuous? Do
bicycleaccommodations
provide adequate
connectivity to major
destinations?

8.

Is there a safe way
for cyclists fromboth directions toaccess connections
or continue to otherdestinations along
the street network?

Lighting
Is the riding surface
adequately lit?

9.

Visibility
Is the visibility ofcyclists using thefacility adequate
from the perspectiveof all road users?

10.

Signs and pavement markings
Are signs andmarkings along theriding surface
visible,wellmaintained,easily understood,
and adequate?

11.

Are adequate
warning signs posted
at entrances?

Traffic signals
If bicycle traffic signalization and detection are present, are they properly positioned, functioning, and effective?
Does the traffic signal design accommodate all users?

12.

Human factors/bevaviours
What are all roadway users (vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, etc.) doing with regards to bicycle traffic, andvice versa?

Source: (Nabors, et al. 2012)CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

166 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Accounting for confounding factors
There are multiple confounding variables that may have an impact on observed safety outcomes that
may not be captured in ex-ante or ex-post evaluation of bicycle safety measures. “Safety in numbers”, as
discussed in Chapter 1, is one good example. Does safety result from the presence of numerous cyclists
or are numerous cyclists evidence of a safe cycling environment? Alternatively, does the assessment of abicycle safety measure account for the generalised road safety improvement that can be observed inmany countries? Robust assessment methodologies and ensuring relevant temporal or spatial coverage ofbicycle safety measures should reduce the risk of missing confounding variables. Without these, there isa risk that safety policies lead to unintended and possibly deleterious consequences.
Accounting for behavioural responses to safety measures
Road safety policy, especially that targeting infrastructure, has typically assumed a deterministic
and fixed response to road safety interventions wherein road users have a single and predictable responseto changes in infrastructure design or a new policy (Noland 2012). For instance, the typical assumption
would be that improved sightlines on roads would simply allow traffic users to better detect potential
obstacles and avoid them in time and thus reduce the number and severity of crashes. However, a likely
response to such an intervention is that road users increase their speed. Why this would be the case has
been the focus of much recent research in the traffic safety field and though debate is ongoing, there isbroad (but not unanimous) support for theories relating to risk compensation or risk homeostasis. These
approaches assume that road users explicitly or implicitly make decisions on the basis of a target or
acceptable level of risk or otherwise trade off risk for other desirable outcomes (shortened travel time,
thrill of speed, etc.)1.
For cycling safety policy, this means that behavioural responses to safety policies must be
accounted for in policy development and assessment. For instance, will riding in a cycle lane or wearinga helmet increase the propensity for motorists to pass cyclists more closely? Alternatively, will providing
dedicated cycling infrastructure or helmet-wearing increase risk-taking on the part of cyclists? While itseems unlikely that behavioural responses will negate the safety-improving effect of most safety
interventions, the potential for reduced benefits is important and this may affect the outcome policy
appraisal. We highlight some of the behavioural response aspects of the measures described in thischapter where research is available.
Differentiating between safety and the perception of safety
We should also make clear that the discussion of “bicycle safety” itself is not a unitary concept.
There are actions that demonstrably reduce the material risk of crashes or attenuate their severity – thesetypes of measures have a direct impact on the safety of existing cyclists. There are also measures that
reduce the perception of crash risk by cyclists – e.g. measures that increase the perception of safety. In
some cases, this perception may not reflect actual crash risk and in most cases, is highly dependent on thelevel of experience of cyclists themselves (see for example Box 5.2). A classic example is the heightened
perception of safety attributed by many cyclists to separated cycle tracks even though actual crash risk atroad- cycle track junctions may in fact be higher when these junctions are poorly designed. It may seemthat improving perceived safety is an unimportant distraction that may result in negative outcomes but
improving the perception of safety may attract new cyclists and thus deliver the very strong overall
health benefits discussed in Chapter 1. This is especially important if groups currently under-represented
in cycling populations are to be encouraged2. Authorities seeking to maximise the benefits stemmingfrom cycling will have to address both material and perceived safety simultaneously and they should do

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 167

so with the understanding that what is perceived as safe will differ among different groups of existing or
potential cyclists.
Box 5.2 Perceived Safety and Route Choice Preference: Evidence from India and Korea
Studies looking at perceived safety and cyclist route preferences have tended to be based on research based in OECD
countries, notable Europe and North America. Cycling mode shares in non-European countries can be elevated – e.g. in many
Indian and Chinese cities cycling mode shares are much higher than in similarly sized European or North American cities thoughcycling is losing ground to motorized two and four-wheeled vehicles as incomes rise in these and other developing countries.
Korea has reached a more advanced stage of economic development and a relatively high motorization rate although efforts areunderway to promote cycling there as a way of increasing health and promoting less environmentally harmful transport. In thecourse of this working group, members contributed findings from two recent research projects aiming to gauge cyclists
perception of safety and route preference in India and Korea – these may be found in Annexes B and C.
Evidence from India (Annex B):
Cycling mode shares are relatively elevated in a number of medium to large cities though most Indian cyclists are “captive”
riders who bicycle out of necessity as no other viable (and affordable) mobility options are available to them. One study looking
at perceptions of such “captive” riders as compared to a group of not yet riding (potential) riders (short trip makers) found thatthe perception of risk among captive riders and potential riders does not show much difference contrary to what was expected.
Both captive riders as well as potential cyclists focus on physical safety and the difficulties in crossing junctions. Differencesamong these two populations arise, however, in their perception of comfort / attractiveness and identification of barriers.
Pedestrians / bus commuters waiting at the curb side lane are considered as predominant barriers (about 28%) by potential
cyclists while captive riders are more tolerant to them. Results indicate that perception of safety and comfort are not related totype of zone and distance travelled. The presence of informal sector on the street side is social security element and wasconsidered attractive for captive cyclists, especially as they use these services. Potential cyclists, however, consider the informal
sector as a barrier to riding. Results show potential cyclists perceive slope as bigger barrier to riding as compared to captive
riders. Captive riders prefer wider arterial roads against the narrow roads preferred by potential cyclists.
Evidence from Korea (Annex C):
Unlike the situation in India, evidence indicates that most cyclists in Korea ride for health and leisure and not for transport
purposes. Korea has seen an increase in the number of bicycle crashes and injuries though deaths have remained relatively
constant. One study looking at Korean cyclists’ perception of safety found that segregated facilities enhanced current cyclists’perception of safety – but not nearly as much as reducing motor traffic speed did.

5.3

Non-infrastructural measures

Many non-infrastructural measures have been subject to research studies, but only a small numberof those studies base their conclusions on actual crash data. Instead the major part of these studies
estimate changes in risk factors – such as behavioural changes, changes in stopping distances (brakes) or
detection distances (reflectors). This is especially the case for safety equipment. It seems that use of
bicycle helmets is the only type of protective device which has been subject to evaluation studies basedon actual crash data. Where relevant, we note the basis for the safety evaluation of the following
measures.
Safety Equipment and Vehicle design
Reflectors, lamps, brakes, handlebars and gears on bicycles
Note: None of the measures in these categories have been evaluated by use of actual crash data.
According to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) the most important types of safety equipment are:CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

168 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Pedal reflectors



Tail lightBrakes on both wheels (vs. back wheel only)Synthetic brake blocks (vs. rubber)

Rim brakes vs. hub brakes

These five measures all contribute to a major (and statistically significant) improvement in the risk
factors detection distance and stopping distance.
Daytime running lights on bicycles
New types of bicycle lights – permanently fixed to the bike, powered by magnetic induction frommagnets fixed to the spokes – have made daytime running lights on bicycles a realistic option. The first
generation of these lights only came as flashing lights – making them illegal in some countries – but
within recent years a number of manufactures have also launch steady light versions.
The safety effect of daytime running lights on bicycles was tested in a Danish study in 2005
(Madsen 2006). Nearly 2,000 cyclists in the town of Odense used the new induction lights (flashing type)for one year with, while 2,000 others continued with ordinary bike lights, which were only switched on
during dark hours. The accident frequencies of the two groups (based on self-reported accidents) werethen compared and analysed.
Figure 5.3 Tail and front lights (from two different manufacturers) powered by magnetic induction.

Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 169

The main result was that use of daytime running lights was associated with a reduction of thenumber of crashes by more than 30%. The number of related crashes (crashes in daylight and with acounterpart) decreased by 50% approximately. Both results are statistically significant. There areindications that the study may have not controlled for all factors – for instance it is unclear to what extent
the control group’s crashes included single vehicle crashes (this type of crash is hardly influenced use of
induction lights). Also, the study makes no finding as to the safety effect of flashing versus steady lights.
Blind spot mirrors on trucks
Heavy goods vehicle (HGVs)-bicycle collisions are less common than car-bicycle collisions but
they are especially deadly (See Chapter 4). One of the main sources of danger is the limited visibility ofcyclists to HGV drivers. Because of the elevated driving position and blind spots caused by structuralelements of the driving compartment (including mirrors themselves), a significant portion of the area tothe front and on the nearside of HGVs is shielded from the driver’s view at ground level (Figure 5.4).
Cyclists within these blind zones are invisible or only partially visible to HGV drivers and thus at risk ofbeing struck, especially in nearside turning manoeuvres. In order to counter this threat, the EU has
introduced legislation requiring truck manufacturers to fit mirrors or equivalent systems to extend
sideways and rearward vision (Directive 2003/97/EC8). Accompanying legislation requires HGVs
registered after January 2000 to be retrofitted with such devices (2007/38/EC9). Following the enactmentof these two pieces of legislation, the number of vulnerable road users killed in HGV crashes has
dropped significantly but at the same time all traffic fatalities dropped even more sharply so it is difficult
to isolate the specific safety impact of the two directives (Knight 2011). It should also be noted that evenwith additional and extended vision mirrors, blind spots remain – mirrors can reduce the risk of cyclist
non-detection by HGV drivers but they do not eliminate it altogether.
Figure 5.4 Ground-level blind spots for HGV/Construction equipment drivers andthe impact of additional mirrors

Direct and plain rear view mirror

With additional mirrors

Cement mixing lorry

CyclistCyclistPlain rear view mirror
Rear window direct viewWindscreen direct view

Wide angle rear view mirror

Not directly or indirectly visible at ground level

Front projection mirror

Side close proximity mirror

Curtain-sided delivery lorry

CyclistCyclistPlain rear view mirror
0

2m

5m

Windscreen direct view
10m

Source: (Delmonte, et al. 2013)CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

Wide angle rear view mirror

Not directly or indirectly visible at ground level

Front projection mirror

Side close proximity mirror

170 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Previously, blind spot mirrors had been made mandatory on all Dutch trucks by the end of 2003. No
studies evaluating the safety effect of blind spot mirrors have been found. Crash statistics from
Netherlands show that for a short period of time (2002-2003) the number of related fatal accidents
decreased, but from 2004 the numbers were back on the same level as before (SWOV 2009)
As a result of an in-depth accident study the Danish Road Traffic Accident Investigation Board
recommends front projection mirrors on trucks (HVU 2006) in order to diminish the .blind spot directlyin front of the vehicle (see Figure 5.4). Mirrors are only useful if they are indeed used by HGV drivers
and there is some indication that the multiplication of mirrors may in fact be a distraction to drivers andlimit their effectiveness (Knight 2011). For this reason, the Danish Road Traffic Investigation Board
recommends that mirrors be clustered together (e.g. on common masts) to make the mirrors easier to use
rather than multiplying the number of mirrors.
Other on-vehicle measures targeting HGV blind spots have also been proposed and implemented insome cases. These include onboard indirect vision aids (cameras and displays) and onboard sensors andwarning devices.
Low level windows on trucks
No studies evaluating the safety effect of low level windows have been found (see Figure 5.5).
Nonetheless, the measure was recommended by the Danish Road Traffic Accident Investigation Board
following an in-depth study of truck-bicycle crashes with trucks turning nearside and bicycles goingstraight ahead (HVU 2006). One of the main conclusions from the study was that drivers either failing tolook or see a cyclist were contributory factors in all 25 crashes analysed.
Figure 5.5 Truck with low level windscreen and side windows (Copenhagen)Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 171

The in-depth study also found that in many crashes with nearside turning trucks, the lower edge of
the windscreen or the side windows of the truck was more than 2 m above the road surface. To be able tosee bicyclists positioned near the nearside front corner or along the nearside of the truck the driver thenhad to rely 100% on the mirrors and remember to use each of them. This finding is consistent with someof the analysis of EU Directives 2003/97/EC8 and 2007/38/EC9. Despite the use of all recommended
mirrors, some blind spots for detecting cyclist still remain (Knight 2011). Low level windows could help
drivers to be more aware of cyclists on the non-driver side and could improve the chances of drivers
perceiving cyclists in their path before initiating a turn.
Protective devices -- Bicycle helmets
One area that has received vigorous research focus is the safety impact of bicycle helmet use and ofhelmet-wearing mandates. Studies addressing the safety impact of helmets can generally be split into twogroups: those that focus on the way in which bicycle helmets change the injury risk for individual
cyclists in case of a crash and those that focus on the generalised safety effect of introducing measures(typically campaigns and/or legislation) to increase helmet use among cyclists. These two approaches
and their results must be treated separately.
The first group generally finds that wearing a bicycle helmet reduces the risk of sustaining a head injury
in a crash (head injuries are among the most severe outcomes of cycle crashes). Meta-analysis of thequantified safety effects of bicycle helmet use in (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) finds the following:
Effects of wearing hard shell bicycle helmet in case of an accident:

Risk of sustaining head injuries in general will decrease by 64%

Risk of sustaining facial injuries will decrease by 34%

Risk of sustaining neck injuries will increase by 36%

Effects of wearing soft shell bicycle helmet in case of an accident:

Risk of sustaining head injuries in general will decrease by 41%

Risk of sustaining facial injuries will increase by 14% (not significant)A comprehensive Australian synthesis of 16 peer-reviewed studies in which the odds ratio fordifferent types of head injuries was calculated using meta-analyses (Attewell, Glase and McFadden2001) found similar results to those presented above. A subsequent re-analysis of this study controllingfor publication bias found the safety-improving effect to be less pronounced and principally evident onlyin older studies (Elvik 2011).
To be clear -- these studies indicate that helmets reduce the risk of fatal and non-fatal head injuries
for a single cyclist in case of a crash3. These are important benefits and greatly reduce the negative
outcomes of crashes involving head contact. Furthermore, helmet technology has advanced considerably
since the meta-analyses cited above – it is not clear that these findings reflect the safety effects of thelatest generation of cycling helmets.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

172 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

These safety effects, however, must not be mistaken for the aggregate health effects of mandatory
helmet legislation or other measures to increase helmet use which must take into account the impact onoverall numbers of cyclists. The health and safety effect of mandatory helmet legislation has been
evaluated in far fewer studies than the individual risk in case of a crash. The effect of mandatory helmet
legislation is a result of a series of sometimes conflicting factors:


Reduced injury risk (due to increased helmet use)

Increased crash risk (due to change in behaviour amongst cyclists who take up wearing
helmets)

Changes in the composition of the cycling population due to the mandate (e.g. cautious
cyclists no longer riding because of perceived risk due to helmet mandate)Less cycling (leading to a reduced number of accidents and injuries, possibly contributing toa higher crash risk for those who still bike as discussed in Chapter 1 and, a potential
reduction of overall health due to less physical exercise)That helmet use decreases head injuries seems clear but other injuries may increase if helmetwearers display riskier cycling behaviour. Changes in the composition and characteristic of the cycling
population after helmet mandates are rarely controlled for in evaluation studies though this could be an
important determinant of crash rates and severity (Robinson 2007). Whether cyclists change behaviour
when they start to use a bicycle helmet seems very uncertain (and difficult to prove) but there is evidencein support of this (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) (Fyhri, Bjørnskau et Backer-Grøndahl, 2012) (Fyhri etPhillips 2013) (Phillips, Fyrhi et Sagberg 2013). It seems plausible that mandatory helmet use may
dissuade new cyclists and possibly reduce the overall number of existing cyclists though there isconflicting evidence on this point. Those that are left, e.g. those that choose to cycle under mandated
helmet use, might display a behaviour which is different from the behaviour of those who stop cycling(Fyhri, Bjørnskau et Backer-Grøndahl, 2012). Even under helmet use mandates, some cyclists willcontinue to ride without helmets and there is evidence that these cyclists display riskier behaviour than
the remaining helmeted riders (Bambach, et al. 2013). All of these factors interplay but are rarely
explicitly accounted for in research investigating the impact of mandatory helmet use. There is also
evidence that motorists behave differently in the presence of helmeted riders for example by passingthese cyclists more closely than non-helmeted riders (Walker 2007). This may have an incidence on
crash numbers in the presence of increased helmet use.
(Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) seek to quantify the impact of each of the factors cited previously while
trying to control for the different dynamics described above. They find that helmet use mandates have thefollowing effects:

Injury risk: head injuries are reduced by 25% (increased helmet usage)



Crash risk: all injuries increase by 14% (change in behaviour)Number of cyclists: all injuries are reduced by 29% (less cycling)

Overall, they find the effect of mandatory helmet legislation is a reduction in all injuries by 22% but
they do not quantify the health impact resulting from the reduced number of cyclists. This is a crucial
point because as discussed in Chapter 1, evidence suggests that the health benefits from cycling far
outweigh the aggregate health and safety disbenefits.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 173

One study (de Jongh 2012) seeks to address the overall health impact of mandatory bicycle helmet
laws. He finds that in jurisdictions where cycling is relatively safe, helmet mandates are likely to havelarge unintended negative health impacts due to a drop in the number of cyclists. Furthermore in areas
where cycling is already unsafe, helmet mandates will in most cases do little to improve safety and only
under the most extreme assumptions will overall societal health improve. These are contestable findings
as the ongoing debate around helmet use mandates would seem to suggest but it seems clear from a
policy perspective that several key factors must be considered when considering such legislation. These
include the impact of the mandate on the size and composition of the cycling population (and their risk
profiles), the overall impact on health (and not just safety) and the need to address confounding factors
and behavioural responses in ex-post evaluation.
5.4

Infrastructural measures

General design considerations
Premises for planning and geometric design
Regardless of local or national traditions and legislation it is important to keep in mind, that abicycle is a vehicle. Just like any other motorised or non-motorised vehicle, a bicycle moves at a certain
speed, which means that the cyclist needs time to react and brake or change direction if an obstacle or an
unpredicted situation occurs. In practice, this means that on two-directional bicycle tracks or paths (greenways) the geometric alignment must meet physical parameters for sight distances to prevent head-on
collisions between cyclists or between cyclists and moped riders (if moped riders are allowed on thebicycle track). This is especially important in curves at the end of a downhill section and/or where thebicycle track bends into tunnels/underpasses. In some countries these issues have been addressed bydescribing design speeds, sight/brake distances and minimum radii of horizontal curves in road standards
or design guidelines. The tables below show some examples from the United Kingdom.
Table 5.1 Recommended minimum stopping sight distances (UK)
Off-Carriageway Cycle Routes (UK)

Design Speed

Acceptable minimum (over short distances)
General off-carriageway
provision

cycle

route

Preferred
MinimumRadii(horizontal)

10 km/hPreferred
Minimum Stopping
Sight
Distance
10 m

30 km/h

30 m

25 m

4m

Source: UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/, accessed September 23, 2013)

Steep gradients can lead to relatively high speeds for descending cyclists or very low speeds for
climbing cyclists – both can create hazards – thus gradients should be kept to a minimum. Stopping
distances also increase significantly on downhill gradients in excess of 5%, and obstacles and sharp
bends at the top or bottom of steep and/or long gradients should be avoided. In general a maximum.
gradient of 3% is recommended in road standards from a number of countries. In Danish road standards
the recommended maximum gradient depends on the distance travelled, which is shown in the following
table.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

174 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Table 5.2. Recommended gradients (Denmark)
GradientMax. distance

Vertical height

5,0% (1:20)

50 m

2,5 m

4,5% (1:22)

100 m

4,5 m

4,0% (1:25)

200 m

8,0 m

3,5% (1:29)

300 m

10,5 m

3,0% (1:33)

500 m

15,0 mSource: Danish Road Administration

Separation or integration
Separating bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic is often regarded as an obvious measure to
improve safety for bicyclists. As discussed in Chapter 1, separation of vehicles of different mass,different speed and different capabilities is one of the precepts of the ”Safe System” approach. Thisapproach has largely guided bicycle safety planning in a number of European countries that display highnumbers of cyclists and good safety performance. Nonetheless, separation has not been universally
accepted as a desirable bicycle safety strategy – notably in the United States where there has been ahistorically significant movement in support of ”vehicular cycling” which advocates full mixing ofbicycles in traffic and ensuring that cyclists behave in the same manner as other (motorised) road users.
Support for vehicular cycling in the United States and elsewhere appears to be waning as municipalities
there adopt the principal of segregated facilities as a way to ensure safety and attract new cyclists who
would otherwise be intimidated in traffic. Recent research on the safety of cycling on segregatedfacilities vs. in mixed traffic in North America indicate that the former is safer (and is perceived as safer)than riding in mixed traffic (Teshke, et al. 2012) (Lusk, et al. 2011). A recent literature review also finds
a safety-improving effect for segregated bicycle facilities (Reynolds, et al. 2009). This is somewhat incontradiction with some research from countries with extensive bicycle facilities and elevated cycling
mode share that report elevated crash risks at junctions associated with bicycle tracks.
Bicycle traffic can be separated from motor traffic by installing separate areas designated forbicycles. Such areas may be part of the carriageway (paved shoulder or bicycle lane), separated from thecarriageway by verge or kerbstones (bicycle track or bicycle path), or may not be part of a road at all(green ways).
In this matter motor vehicle speed is a very decisive factor. The fatality risk for vulnerable road
users as a function of crash opponent speed is well-studied and documented (Figure 5.6) (Rosen, Stigson
et Sander 2011) (Teft 2011) . It should be noted that the speed-fatality (or speed-serious injury)
relationship is nearly always based on analysis of pedestrian fatalities. Cyclists display different speed
profiles as compared to pedestrians and this is likely to modify to some extent the motor vehicle-cyclist
fatality relationship by an unknown but likely small extent. Crash outcomes at a given motor vehicle
speed will differ among motor vehicles of different mass and cyclists of different ages (Teft 2011).
Generally however, cyclists’ exposure to fatal and serious injury crashes rises exponentially withcollision speed – reducing this exposure calls for separating bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic onroads and in areas where motor vehicle speed is as low as 30 km/h.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 175

Figure 5.6 Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed

Source: (Rosen, Stigson et Sander 2011)

Figure 5.7 Guide for planning bicycle facilities on all-purpose roads (Denmark)
80

60

20

Cycle
track

Cycle
lane

Mixed
traffic

Target motorised traffic speed (km/hr)

30

separated by verge(parking allowed)

50

40

Cycle track

Shoulder/kerb lane

70

10

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Motorised traffic volume (vehicles per 24 hrs)

Source: Cycling Embassy of Denmark, 2012 (Andersen, et al. 2012)

In most countries the situation on the road network is very far from the ”Safe System” ideal of massand speed-based separation. Where this is the case, emphasis should be put on separating bicycles frommotor vehicles on the roads with highest speed levels and the highest traffic volumes, and slowing down
speeds at junctions. Figure 5.7 illustrates a general approach to aligning bicycle infrastructure design totraffic speed and volumes as suggested by the Danish Cycling Embassy. It should be noted that in someCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

176 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

countries applying a strict ”Safe System” approach such as the Netherlands, allowing bicycles adjacent tohigh speed motor traffic (upper left-hand side of figure 5.7) should never be allowed, despite low traffic
volumes.
Linear facilities on all-purpose roads
A bicycle track/path may be designed either as a one-directional bicycle track – and is then normallyinstalled on both sides of road – or as a two-directional bicycle track – which is installed only in one sideof the road (Figure 5.8).
Findings on the safety impact of cycle tracks are mixed. Generally speaking, bicycle tracks reduce
the number of head-on collisions and rear-end collisions involving bicycles on links between junctions(as might be expected due to the segregation of traffic). At the same time, however, the number ofcrashes involving bicycles in junctions have been seen to increase in some, but not all studies. Studies
finding an increase in junction crashes do not give an indication of crash severity at junctions thoughcrash reduction on linear tracks is an important result as rear-end and overtaking crashes (typical of nonjunction mixed traffic bicycle crashes) are often relatively high-speed crashes and therefore likely to havesevere outcomes.
Figure 5.8 Bicycle Tracks

Left – One-way bicycle track with “buffer” zone (cobble stones) to prevent collisions between bicycles and opening car doors (Copenhagen),Right – 2-way bicycle track with separation from pedestrians and parked cars (Budapest) Junction treatment of two-way bicycle tracks isparticularly delicate as such infrastructure gives rise to non-conventional traffic manoeuvres.

Photo credit: Authors

If bicycle tracks are installed as a crash reduction measure, it is important to identify the actual
safety problems on the road to determine whether a bicycle track is actually the right measure to mitigate
those problems. In particular special attention needs to be paid to safe layout in junctions. Traffic
authorities should also be aware that:

Conflicts can occur at bus stops and where vehicles are parked on or beside cycle lanes.

Fewer serious accidents involving personal injury occur on cycle tracks than on cycle lanes.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 177



Bi-directional cycle tracks along roads invariably lead to non-conventional manoeuvres atjunctions and where such tracks terminate. These situations entail a significant risk ofcrashes. Two-directional cycle tracks along roads generally should be avoided, unless theadvantages are very clear or the space constraints for two unidirectional tracks
insurmountable.

Bicycle tracks marked directly on the sidewalk might be the easiest and cheapest way of providing
bicycle infrastructure (Figure 5.9), but conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians are inevitable for thisconfiguration and in general it should be avoided.
Figure 5.9 Left: Bicycle track (barely) marked on the sidewalk (Germany)
Right: Bicycle track marked on the sidewalk (Faroe Islands)

Photo credit: Authors

One-way systems should normally only apply to motor vehicular traffic in dense urban street
networks; the inconvenience of permitting bidirectional cycle traffic - with appropriate markings andprotection - is usually less than the inconvenience of compelling cyclists to take a diversion or of having
them ride in contravention of the rules. Contra-flow cycling on low-speed streets has been deployed in a
number of countries. This measure requires clear entry and exit markings and surface treatments to alert
motor vehicle drivers of the possibility of oncoming cyclists (Figure 5.10). (Mairie of Paris, 2012) has
evaluated the before and after safety impact of contra-flow cycling on a number of one-way (for cars)
streets in Paris. They find that the implementation of contra-flow cycling significantly increased overall
bicycle traffic on the streets in question and also resulted in a drop in average motor vehicle speed (thestreets in question were all limited top 30km/hr though actual motor vehicle speeds were sometimes
higher). At the same time, there was no increase in cycling crashes (despite higher numbers of bicycles)
and that those crashes that occurred did not significantly diverge in nature from the pre-contra-flow
situation (e.g. most crashes were due to car-door collisions and failure to cede right-of-way in the motorvehicle direction of travel. The study found that the incidence of post-contra-flow frontal bicycle-car
collisions was extremely low (1 in fact over the one year post-implementation study period though thishad been cited as one of the major risk factors) as was the crash’s severity (possibly a consequence of
reduced motor vehicle speed). The study’s findings did highlight the risk for pedestrians in mid-blockcrossings. These findings provide a snapshot of the early effects of the implementation of contra-flow
cycling just as motorists and cyclists are adapting to the new street configuration – it may be expected

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

178 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

that crash risk and severity may further decrease as road users become habituated to the new
configuration.
Figure 5.10 Contra flow streets in Strasbourg (left) and St. Germain-en-Laye (right)

Photo credit: Authors

Junction design
In priority-controlled junctions, visibility splays must be provided for bicycle lanes, tracks or paths,
if they continue through the junction.
The figure below (Figure 5.11) shows the visibility splays in a priority-controlled T-junction, where
there are bicycle tracks along the primary road, and traffic from the side road has to yield for cyclists on
the bicycle track as well as for motorised vehicles on the main carriageway.
Figure 5.11 Visibility splays in priority controlled T-junction(with one-directional bicycle paths on main road, right-hand drive)
Bicycle track

lp

lp

lpc

Bicycle trackls
Lp : sight distance to vehicles on primary road
Lpc : sight distance to cyclists on bicycle track (along primaryroad)
Ls: eye point distance from give way line

Source: Danish Road AdministrationCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 179

Junction design is critical for improving cycling safety. Many potential treatments exist in order toensure that poor visibility or sight lines do not impede safety:

At priority-controlled junctions, the number of crashes involving cyclists decreases when
the cycle track continues all the way through the junction.

At signalised junctions, the installation of blue bicycle crossings can reduce the numbers ofcyclists killed or injured, especially in connection with accidents when turning offside.

Advanced stop lines at signalised junctions exert an influence on crashes occurring between
vehicles turning to the nearside and cyclists travelling straight ahead, when these accidents
occur at the start of the green period.



Truncated cycle tracks at signalised junctions also result in fewer accidents involving
vehicles turning to the nearside, although some cyclists may consider this approach unsafe.

Roundabouts
Roundabouts can play an important role in limiting the number of casualties at junctions and havebeen deployed in many jurisdictions. However, according to a great number of research studies fromdifferent countries, roundabouts do not seem to reduce the number of crashes involving cyclists. For
example, (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) reports that several studies have shown little or no reduction in thenumber of bicycle crashes, when junctions are changed into roundabouts.
Many attempts have been made to find differences in the level of safety for cyclists in roundaboutswith different types of layout. So far the results are not very clear, with the exception that roundaboutswith more than one lane are associated with a higher incidence of bicycle crashes and should not be usedby cyclists. Separate bicycle path systems – preferably with grade-separated cycle crossings – should beestablished for bicycle traffic at such roundabouts.
There are four types of roundabout design that are relevant in connection with safety for cyclist:One lane roundabout without any bicycle facilities.

One lane roundabout with a bicycle track in the roundabout (next to the outer edge of thecirculatory carriageway).



One lane roundabout with a bicycle lane in the roundabout (on the outer edge of thecirculatory carriageway).



One lane roundabout with bicycle tracks recessed from the roundabout and cyclists having
duty to yield when crossing the road arms.

Recent Belgian, German and American studies indicate that bicycle tracks or bicycle lanes in theroundabout (at the outer edge of the circulatory carriageway) are the worst solutions concerning safety
for bicyclists (De Brabander, Nuyts and Vereeck 2005), (Daniels, et al. 2008). A recent Danish study
also indicates, that the number of bicycle crashes is correlated with the speed of motor vehicles in theroundabout (Hels and Møller 2007).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

180 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Figure 5.12 Small roundabout (mini roundabout) with raised (blue) bicycle lane (Copenhagen)Photo credit: Authors

A special type of roundabout is shown in Figure 5.12. Car speed is reduced by raising the bicycle
lane a few centimetres above the normal road surface, so cars entering and leaving the roundabout haveto pass a sort of “road hump” when they cross the bicycle lane. This has the advantage of strongly
signalling the potential presence of cyclists to motorists but there are as of yet no studies quantifying thesafety impact of this roundabout treatment.
Maintenance and Enforcement
While not strictly design principles, the effectiveness of safety-improving infrastructure treatments
relies on ensuring that these operate as intended. In order to do so, bicycle infrastructure must be
maintained to a standard such that the condition of the infrastructure does not contribute to crashes. Thismeans ensuring that potholes and other running track irregularities are quickly repaired, that surfaces are
swept of debris regularly and that bicycle facilities are kept clear of snow or standing water. Failure to doso might provoke crashes as cyclists hit, or alternatively, swerve to avoid obstacles or as bicycles lose
traction due to poorly maintained or slippery surfaces. Maintenance may be particularly effective in
reducing single bicycle crashes and falls since it corrects many of the contributory factors in these typesof crashes (Reid and Adams 2010) (Schepers and Klein Wolt 2012).
Motor vehicle encroachment onto bicycle infrastructure causes cyclists to swerve to avoid and/or
make their way past illegally parked or positioned motor vehicles (Figure 5.13). In addition, many
jurisdictions stipulate minimum passing distances for cyclists (in mixed traffic) and have establishedright-of-way rules that govern cyclist/motor vehicle interaction at non-signalised junctions. Effective
enforcement of these rules may avoid potentially dangerous conflicts that could result in injury crashes.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 181

Figure 5.13 Motor vehicle encroachment onto cycling infrastructure can contribute tocrash-causing manoeuvres

Photo credit: Authors

Enforcement of (or abiding by) traffic rules for cyclists – especially at signalised junctions -- may
also avoid situations where cyclists and motor vehicles come into conflict. Red light running by cyclists,
for instance, is an often-cited contributory factor in fatal and serious injury bicycle crashes (at least in the
United States as discussed in Chapter 4, and likely elsewhere as well). For instance, (District ofColumbia Department of Transportation 2012) reports that 40% of cyclists observed in an evaluation
study in 2012 disobeyed signals at signalised junctions. Non-compliance was highest at junctions withlow volumes of conflicting traffic or long signal delays. In the latter cases, enforcement may bechallenging as cyclists may feel that signal timing and traffic volumes do not account for bicycle traffic.
Accident reduction measures for road sections
Bicycle paths/tracks along roads
The safety effect of building bicycle paths or tracks along roads (Figure 5.14) has been subject to agreat number of research studies within the last 30-40 years. In general the studies show, that building
bicycle paths/tracks along a road reduces the number of head-on collisions and rear-end collisions
involving bicycles on road sections between junctions (as expected) and there are some indications of
reduced crash severity as well. However, the number of accidents involving bicycles in junctions (and insome cases at bus stops) are likely to increase as discussed earlier.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

182 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Figure 5.14 Typical bicycle paths/tracks alongside roads

Left: Typical Danish one-directional bicycle track in urban area separated from the carriageway by kerbstones (Copenhagen). Right: Twodirectional bicycle path in urban area separated from the carriageway by a verge (Warsaw).

Photo credit: Authors

According to the meta-analysis in (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009), the overall safety effects of bicycle
paths/tracks in relation to injury crashes involving bicycles are:

A statistically significant increase of 24% in junctions.



A statistically significant decrease of 11% on road sections (mid blocks).

On average the overall result is a non-significant increase of 7% for injury accidents involving
bicycles according to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009). It should be added that the installation of bicycle tracks
will make all injury accidents (not only bicycle accidents) decrease by 2% according to the same source.
A Danish study (Jensen,) sheds additional light on which crash types have increased and which havedecreased following the installation of bicycle tracks on 20,6 km of roads and streets in the city of
Copenhagen. In brief, it finds:


In junctions: crashes with cyclists being hit by cars turning left or right will increase, while
crashes with cars hitting offside-turning cyclists will decrease.

On sections: crashes with cyclists hitting other cyclists or pedestrians (mainly bus
passengers) will increase, while accidents with cyclists being hit by cars from behind andaccidents with cyclists hitting parked cars will decrease.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 183

Despite the high number of studies showing similar results, the safety performance of bicycle tracks
and in particular the increase in number of crashes observed on this type of infrastructure is disputed andthe results stated above have often challenged. It is true that some of the studies are quite old and thatmany of the studies are from a limited number of northern European countries with a well-establishedtradition for bicycling and crowded bicycle facilities. Furthermore, the results of many of the studies are
not adjusted for changes in bicycle traffic volumes.
It may be that the safety effect of separated cycle tracks may be different in different contexts aswell. Recent studies from North America do not find a similar increased crash and injury risk associatedwith separate bicycle tracks -- (Lusk, et al. 2011) report that the relative risk of injury on a bicycle trackwas 0.72 as compared with riding on parallel reference streets in Montreal and (Teshke, et al. 2012)
report a relative risk of 0.11 for riding on a cycle track as compared to a similar reference street in
Toronto and Vancouver. Unlike the northern European cycling environments that served as the backdrop
for studies finding increased (junction-related) crash risk for cycle tracks, the Canadian traffic situationthat sets the context for the two aforementioned studies is characterised by lower numbers of cyclists anda much lower cycle infrastructure density. It is unclear from these studies if these factors had an impact
on study results4.
Most of the studies contributing to the results in (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) address the effect ofbuilding bicycle paths/tracks in urban areas. According to a recent Danish synthesis bicycle paths inrural areas show far better results (Jensen, Andersson and Herrstedt 2010). The total number of injury
crashes involving bicycles (and mopeds) decrease by 62% (average for sections and junctions) whenbicycle paths are installed along roads in rural areas. For fatalities the effect is even higher (80% decrease
overall). A possible explanation to this very high effect is the speed level in rural areas and thesubsequent benefit of separating bicycle and motor vehicle traffic.
According to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) and (Jensen, Andersson and Herrstedt 2010) it is notpossible to identify specific results for two-directional bicycle paths. Despite the absence of specificresults in terms of overall safety effects, experience has shown some specific safety problems connected
to two-directional bicycle paths:
Head-on collisions between cyclists or between cyclists and moped riders.



Collisions with cars from the side road in priority junctions (car drivers not paying attention
to cyclists from the “wrong” direction on the bicycle track).

Despite the counter-factual evidence from North America cited above, the observed increase incrash risk associated with cycle tracks in northern European countries is problematic since many
countries are seeking to increase this type of bicycle infrastructure. What then are possible explanations
for this phenomenon and how can they be addressed by policy? A number of theories have been outlined
to explain why bicycle paths and tracks lead to an increasing number of bicycle crashes at junctions. A
generally accepted theory is that the physical separation on the road sections makes bicyclists and car
drivers pay less attention to each other when they approach junctions. This is likely to especially be thecase where the design of the bicycle track “hides” the cyclist from turning cars (Figure 5.15).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

184 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Figure 5.15 Some bicycle track designs (verges with trees, lamp posts etc.) may “hide”
bicyclists from turning cars

Photo credit: Authors

Another possible explanation is that the installation of a bicycle track changes the lateral position of
the bicycles towards the edges of the cross section, thus making cyclists less visible for car drivers
coming from a side road or turning offside into a side road.
In the Danish study (Jensen 2006), a third possible explanation is suggested: When a bicycle track is
installed, it is often necessary – in order to make space for the bicycle track – to ban parking on the road.
As a result more car drivers will turn in to the side roads to look for parking space, and therefore thenumber of crashes in junctions – especially in the minor, priority controlled junctions – will increase
simply because of increased traffic volumes to and from the side roads.
Figure 5.16 Left: Pedestrians crossing a bicycle track. Right:
Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclist on a bicycle track

Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 185

The increased number of pedestrian crashes found in some studies is often explained by lack ofawareness or detection of cyclists by pedestrians who are more concerned about cars on the carriageway
Figure 5.16). They don’t consider bicyclists “dangerous” and forget to look out when crossing thebicycle track. In some cases the design also may contribute to this lack of awareness, for instance if it isdifficult for pedestrians to see a distinction between sidewalk and bicycle track.
Figure 5.17 Bicycle-pedestrian interaction zones at bus stops

Left: Bicycle track with speed hump at bus stop. Right: Bus stop with pedestrian island between bus bay and bicycle track.

Photo credit: Authors

It is also important to remember that the installation of bicycle tracks will generate new conflicts atbus stops, since bus passengers now have to cross the bicycle track to get from the sidewalk to the bus orreverse. Possible counter measures include speed bumps on cycle tracks slightly before the bus stop or a
refuge island between cycle track and bus bay to shelter passengers boarding or alighting from the bus(Figure 5.17).
Bicycle lanes in urban areas
The safety effect of marking bicycle lanes on the carriageway has also been subject to a number of
research studies within the last 30-40 years. Most of the studies address bicycle lanes in urban areas(Figure 5.18). In general the studies find that bicycle lanes reduce the number of crashes involving
bicycles on sections (mid-blocks) as well as in junctions.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

186 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Figure 5.18 Typical bicycle lanes

Left: Bicycle lane in Norway (Oslo). Right: Bicycle lane in Denmark (Copenhagen).

Photo credit: Authors

According to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009), the average safety effects on injury crashes involving
bicycles areA statistically significant decrease of 25% in junctions.



A non-significant decrease of 19% on road sections (mid blocks).

On average the overall result for both sections and junctions is a decrease of 9% for injury crashes
involving bicycles. This overall result is based on many more studies than the specified effects forjunctions and sections (which explains why the overall effect is not somewhere between 19% and 25%).
The results found in (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) are all based on studies of “pure” bicycle lanes (noshared lanes of any kind). There is little research on the safety effects of shared lanes or “suggested”
lanes (see glossary). One study, however, finds a relative risk of 1.99 for suggested bicycle lanes or“sharrows” as compared to a reference street with no infrastructure in two Canadian cities (and also finds
a relative risk for a painted bicycle lane to be 0.86) (K. Teschke 2012). It is also worth mentioning thatthe results from the different studies analysed in (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) in relation to bicycle lanes areless consistent than the results of studies examining the safety impacts of bicycle tracks. For instance theresults from (Jensen 2006) are quite different from the overall results in (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009). In theformer study, an increase in number of bicycle crashes was found on sections and in junctions. On theother hand, this study was based on results from one city only (Copenhagen).
Though the results in (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) are all based on studies of “pure” bicycle lanes (noshared lanes of any kind), there are still differences in the layout of bicycle lanes – not only from one
country to another but also within a country or city (Figure 5.19). Differences in layout could be part ofthe explanation to why the results in (Jensen 2006) are very different from the results in (Elvik, Høye, etal. 2009). For instance, bicycle lanes in Copenhagen are often placed between the sidewalk and a parking
lane, and therefore cyclists are “hidden” from cars turning cars at side roads (Figure 5.19 - right).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 187

Figure 5.19 Bicycle lanes and car parking

Right: Bicycle lane on the left side of car parking zone with door-opening buffer (Paris), Left: Bicycle lane between
a parking lane and the sidewalk (Copenhagen).

Photo credit: Authors

The effects presented in (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009) are only for crashes without reference to crashinjury severity. Other studies have found, that bicycle crashes on roads with bicycle lanes are more
severe than crashes on combined road/bicycle track facilities (depending on speed level) (Jensen,
Andersen, et al. 2000). One contributing factor may be the propensity for motorists to pass cyclists in a
bicycle lane more closely (Walker 2007) (Parkin and Meyers 2010) which may be explained by the factthat motorists position themselves with respect to the painted bicycle lane margin and not the cyclists
within the bicycle lane.
(Turner, et al. 2011) undertook a before-and-after safety impact evaluation for bicycle lanes in a
number of Australian and New Zealand cities. They found that bicycle lanes built to high standards
improve safety while, conversely, cycle lanes built to low standards degrade safety. Taking this into
account, they found the overall safety impact of the lanes studied to be neutral. They also found thatproviding sufficient space in an approach lane or for the combined bicycle lane and adjacent traffic lane
is more important that delimiting a bicycle lane within available (sometimes too little) space – overall
wider cycle lanes (between 1 to 1.8 metres) had beneficial safety impacts. Better driver behaviour was
also observed when cycle lanes were painted in colour.
Paved shoulders
Paved shoulders are often used by cyclists as bicycle lanes on rural roads with no designated bicycle
facility (Figure 5.20). The paved shoulders are separated from the carriageway by either broken or solid –
profiled or non-profiled – edge lines, depending on national or local regulation. The width of the paved
shoulder might be very different from one road to another.
The safety effect of paved shoulders has been subject to a number of research studies. In general thestudies find that roads with paved shoulders (up to approximately 1 metre wide) have lower overall(motor vehicle and bicycle) crash rates than roads without paved shoulders (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

188 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURESThis overall result applies to bicycle crashes as well (Rosbach 1984) – but most of the studies do notestimate specific effects for bicycle crashes. To be clear, allowing cyclists onto paved shoulders in itself
violates one of the principles of “Safe System” approach discussed in Chapter 1 – notably the separationof high mass and high speed traffic from cyclists -- but wide shoulders serves as an imperfect proxy forseparation where fully separated facilities are not felt to be justified.
Figure 5.20 Paved shoulders on rural roads (Denmark)Photo credit: Authors

Paved shoulders may be provided by adding the paved shoulder to the existing road width(widening the paved width) or by narrowing the traffic lanes to make space for hard shoulders within theexisting paved width. Most of the studies find that widening the paved width will reduce the number ofcrashes, but when the paved shoulders are provided within the existing road width, results are very
inconsistent and no clear recommendations can be given. Rumble strips should not be placed in the
paved shoulder if it is supposed to be used by bicyclists.
Parallel access roads
A parallel access road is a lower speed road placed alongside a higher speed main road. It is meant
to be used by vulnerable road users and slow moving (agricultural) vehicles and to provide access to
private properties (Figure 5.21).
According to Dutch road design guidelines (CROW 2002) and based on a comparative (not beforeand-after) study, the accident risk for all vehicles travelling distributor roads with a parallel access road is
55% lower than the accident risk for all vehicles travelling on a distributor road with a parallel bicycle
path. The size of the difference and the specific incidence of bicycle crashes for the two designs are notquantified. However, the perception of safety for cyclists may be higher on a separate bicycle track as
parallel access roads carry traffic and have numerous entries and egresses.
Speed management
Reducing speed – either by means of speed limits or by physical measures – may be used to enhancebicycle safety (and that of pedestrians) (Figure 5.21). These measures may be deployed:

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 189



As a single site treatment (for crash reduction).



As part of a traffic calming scheme (area wide or on a specific road) where the objective isto direct through traffic to more suitable roads.

As part of an “environmental road” where the objective is not to redirect traffic, but toensure that through traffic pass through in a safe way.

The general safety effects of speed reducing devices are well-documented. Studies find that speed
reducing is a very efficient safety measure showing good results worldwide, whether it is used for trafficcalming, for environmental roads or just as a single site measure for accident reduction (Elvik, Høye, etal. 2009). However, some studies looking specifically at bicycle crashes find that traffic calming schemes
generate an increasing number of crashes involving bicycles and other two-wheelers.
Figure 5.21 Road hump with kerbed islands and bollards

The islands protect bicyclists from being squeezed by cars trying to avoid the hump, but the islands also constitute a hazard for bicyclists.

Photo credit: Authors

One of latest studies to show this phenomenon is Danish and was published in 2007 (Jensen 2007).
The study found like many other studies a reduction in the total number of crashes, especially pedestriancrashes, but also a (non-significant) 10% increase in the number of bicycle and moped crashes. The study
does not analyse potential causes for the increase in bicycle and moped crashes, but similar results were
found in the evaluation of the first environmentally adapted through roads in Denmark where it was
found that cyclists were crashing with sign posts, bollards etc. put up as part of the traffic calming
scheme. It is therefore important to ensure that the deployment of speed reduction devices, signage andother traffic-calming measures does not create new hazards to cyclists on speed-controlled streets or intraffic calmed zones.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

190 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Figure 5.22 Spherical road hump without any vertical hazards for bicyclists

Photo credit: Authors

Bicycle streets or Bicycle boulevards
Bicycle boulevards or bicycle streets combine aspects of traffic calming and speed management
resulting in streets with relatively low motor vehicle traffic and attractive cycling conditions. Few studies
have looked at the safety impacts of such streets as a whole though many studies have looked at the
impacts of the specific speed control and traffic calming strategies employed (see above). One study did
investigate the relative safety of bicycle boulevards compared to adjacent reference arterial streets inBerkeley, California and found that collision rates on bicycle boulevards were two to eight times lower(though no difference was found in the share of severe injuries) (Minikel 2012).
Crash reduction measures at cycle track crossings
Refuge / central islands
Central islands are commonly used at pedestrian crossings and are normally regarded as usefulsafety measures, but no evaluations estimating a specific safety effect for bicyclists have been found(Figure 5.23). Evidence from Korea indicates that under-dimensioned refuges may pose a safety hazard
for cyclists due to insufficient marshalling space for bicycles at central islands installed at bicycle
crossings.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 191

Figure 5.23 Central island at bicycle crossing on urban road

Photo credit: Authors

Speed reducing measures on bicycle path / greenway
In some countries bars or barriers across the bicycle path are often used to make cyclists slow down
and, in some cases, dismount before crossing a road (Figure 5.24). From a safety point of view this is not
an ideal solution. Bars are rigid obstacles constituting a hazard to cyclists and many cyclists will try to
avoid passing through the bars, which might lead to hazardous situations.
A Danish behavioural study in the town of Odense did find, that speed reducing measures (humps)
on the bicycle path in combination with right-of-way markings might be a better and more safe
alternative to bars, where greenways cross roads (Jensen 2003).
Figure 5.24 Speed reducing measures on bicycle paths or greenways

Left: Bicycle path with hump and rumble strips on the approach to a bicycle crossing (where bicyclists have to yield). Right: Traditional bicycle
crossing with bars.

Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

192 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Measures in priority junctions
Bicycle crossing with priority
Our review has not found any evaluation of the safety effect of giving cyclists priority at roadcrossings though this is the practice in many countries in line with efforts to structure priority from themost vulnerable road users to the least vulnerable (at least on minor roads in urban areas) (Figure 5.25).
Such priority should only be installed on minor roads, where speeds are relatively low or can be reduced
to a suitable level. In addition, it is important to ensure clear sight lines onto the bicycle infrastructurefrom the motor vehicle operator’s seat.
Figure 5.25 Bicycle crossing on raised plateau and with right of way for bicyclist (Denmark)Photo credit: Authors

Recessed bicycle track
A recessed bicycle track may be used in priority junctions on major roads (Figure 26). The 5-7 m
deflection of the cycle track makes it possible for passenger cars to stop between the bicycle track andthe main road carriageway. The car drivers then will be able to fulfil their obligations to yield in tobicycle traffic which in theory should improve safety. Only one evaluation study of this measure wasfound in our review though it did not find any conclusive safety effects (Andersen, Nielsen and Olesen
2004).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 193

Figure 5.26 Recessed bicycle track

Photo credit: Authors

Continuing bicycle track
Continuing bicycle tracks may be used in priority junctions on minor or major roads (Figure 5.27).
Normally the continuing bicycle track is combined with a continuing sidewalk (sometimes called exit
construction).
Figure 5.27 Continuing bicycle track (and sidewalk) in a priority junction

Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

194 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURESA few evaluation studies have been carried out. According to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009), the overall
safety effect of continuing bicycle track in a priority junction is a 13% (non-significant) reduction in thenumber of bicycle crashes compared to a situation where the bicycle track (and the sidewalk) isinterrupted at the junction. According to (Jensen 2006), the safety benefits of continuing bicycle tracks
are more pronounced for 4-armed junctions than in T-junctions.
Side road entry treatments
Side road entry treatments (SRETs) consist of a flat-topped raised platform across the mouth of aside-road junction with a main carriageway (Reid and Adams 2010) (Figure 2.28). SRETs are not strictly
cycle-specific infrastructure as they were designed primarily for pedestrians but studies have found asafety-improving effect for bicycles. (Wood, et al. 2006) report a statistically significant 20% reductionof bicycle collisions due to SRETS though the overall number of collisions remained essentiallyunchanged (motorised two-wheeler collisions increased) within London. They also report a statisticallysignificant 51% decrease of bicycle collisions (and an estimated 21% reduction of all collisions) in outer
London.
Figure 5.28 Side road entry treatment (SRET) with contra-flow bicycle lane (Paris)

Photo credit: Authors

Storage lane for offside turning bicyclists
No studies evaluating the safety effect of storage lane for offside turning cyclist have been found in
our review (Figure 5.29). The measure, at least in theory, offers a solution to a well-known problem
which has recently been highlighted in a Danish in-depth study on severe bicycle accidents in priority
junctions (HVU 2008). The study found that a significant number of crashes result from a cyclist (often
elderly) failing to look back when turning offside (across oncoming traffic) to a side-road. This type ofcrash is most likely to happen on roads with no bicycle tracks, and in rural areas the outcome is likely to
be a severe – often fatal – casualty due to motor vehicle speed. Storage lanes on the nearside of the roadmitigate this problem by providing an area where the cyclist may slow or dismount and undertake a fullscan back before crossing the road.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 195

Figure 5.29 Bicycle storage lane (Denmark)Bicycle storage lane (on the nearside of the carriageway) providing a protected area where offside turning bicyclists may wait for safe passage.

Photo credit: Authors

Measures in Signalised junctions
Designated signals / separate phases / pre-green stage
Traffic signals (Figures 5.30, 5.31) and different ways of upgrading existing signalised junctions
have been subject to a fairly high number of evaluations and research studies. Unfortunately only very
few of the studies have presented quantified results for reductions of bicycle crashes. (Elvik, Høye, et al.
2009) presents the safety effects of a great number of upgrading measures for signalised junctions. Three
measures are found to be especially likely to be relevant for reducing bicycle crashes, even though theireffects are not quantified in that review. Those measures are:

Extended all-red traffic light phaseConflict-free phase changes



Separate offside turn phases
Figure 5.30 Different types of designated bicycle signals

Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

196 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Extended all-red phases reduce the overall crash risk in signalised junctions by 55% according to(Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009). This result is statistically significant, and it is plausible that cyclists also
benefit from the result. On the other hand, some of the studies that have contributed to this finding are
relatively old, were carried out on junctions with particular accident problems (black spots) and/or did
not control for regression to the mean. It is hardly possible to obtain the same result in a modern
signalised junction with optimised time settings etc.
Conflict-free phase changes decrease injury crashes by 75% according to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009).
As noted above, some of the studies contributing to this finding are old and some caution should be
exercised in interpreting this finding. However, one of the studies explicitly looked at impacts on
bicycles and mopeds, confirming the crash-reduction effect (Bach and Jørgensen 1986). The result was
not statistically significant, but otherwise very clear (almost a 70% reduction).
Separate offside-turn phases reduces the number of offside-turn crashes in signalised junctions by
58% according to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009). This effect is likely also to apply to crashes with bicycles(especially accidents where bicycles are hit by offside turning cars from the opposite direction). It shouldbe mentioned that separate offside-turn phases are likely to cause a minor increase in other types ofcrashes – including crashes involving bicycles. If separate offside-turn phases are introduced in ajunction where offside turn crashes only account for a minor share of overall crashes, there is a risk thatthe decrease in offside turn crashes will be outnumbered by an increase in the number of other types ofcrashes.
Figure 5.31 Bicycle-specific traffic signal phases

Left: Pre-green stage for bicyclists (Copenhagen). Right: Separate phases for nearside turning cars against bicycles travelling straight ahead(Copenhagen).

Photo credit: Authors

Other measures to reduce the number of nearside turn crashes in signalised junctions – such as pregreen stages for cyclists and separate phases for nearside turning cars against bicycles – are commonlyused in some countries, but no specific evaluation of the safety effects have been found.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 197

Advanced stop line
On streets and roads with bicycle tracks or bicycle lanes, differentiated bicycle versus car stop lines
may decrease bicycle crashes (Figure 5.32). The advanced bicycle stop line may be placed ahead of thestop line for cars in order to prevent crashes between nearside-turning cars and bicycles travellingstraight ahead at the beginning of the green stage.
Figure 5.32 Advanced stop line in signalised junction (Copenhagen)Photo credit: Authors

According to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009), advanced stop lines reduce the number of injury crashes
with cyclists by 19% (compared to a situation with stop lines next to each other). This result is notstatistically significant.
According to the Danish synthesis (Jensen, Andersson and Herrstedt 2010), advanced stop lines
reduce two specific injury crash types by 35%:

Car turning to the nearside in front of bicycle going straight ahead

Car turning to the nearside in front of pedestrian walking straight ahead

The Danish Road Traffic Accident Investigation Board recommends that the distance between thetwo stop lines is kept at exactly five metres to make it possible for truck drivers waiting at the stop line
for cars to observe bicyclists waiting at their stop line (HVU 2006).
This treatment augments cyclists’ perception of safety at signalised junctions (as opposed to othertreatments such as the truncated bicycle track) as well as contributes to crash reduction. According to(Jensen 2006), advanced stop lines are the safest solution for cyclists in signalised junctions if combinedwith a separate nearside turn lane for cars. If a separate nearside turn lane cannot be provided, the use of
a truncated bicycle track is safer. It should be noted, however, that these findings were based on crashinvestigations in only one city (Copenhagen).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

198 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

If advanced stop lines are installed in existing signalised junctions, it might be necessary to adjust
the timing of the signals.
Bicycle box
The bicycle box is a reservoir for cyclists placed in front of the stop line for cars at signalised
junctions and might be regarded as an alternative version of the advanced stop line (Figure 5.33). Like
the advanced stop line the purpose is to prevent accidents between nearside turning cars and bicycles
travelling straight ahead at the beginning of the green stage.
Figure 5.33 Bicycle boxes

Left: Bicycle box, signalised 3-armed junction (Edinburgh). Right: Bicycle box in signalised 4-armed junction (St. Germain-en-Laye).

Photo credit: Authors

The bicycle box is used and recommended in many countries, but studies quantifying their safety
effect are lacking. For instance, while a number of behavioural studies have been published none of them
indicate a decisive safety effect (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009). Nonetheless, studies such as (Dill, Monsere
and McNeil 2012) observe that bicycle boxes reduce behaviours that contribute to crashes.
Narrow bicycle lane
The narrow bicycle lane is most often used as a way of continuing an interrupted bicycle track or anormal bicycle lane right up to the stop line in signalised junctions (Figure 5.34). The narrow bicycle
lane may also be used on roads with no bicycle facilities – then it is only marked on the last 10-15 m
before the junction.
The theory is that cyclists travelling on a narrow bicycle lane instead of a bicycle track or a normal
bicycle lane will adjust their behaviour and pay more attention to cars, when they approach the junction.
This is supposed to reduce the risk of cyclists being hit by nearside turning cars. A Danish study on
narrow bicycle lanes in 12 signalised junctions in Copenhagen did not find any significant changes inoverall crash risk (Jensen 2010).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 199

Figure 5.34 Narrow bicycle lanes

Left: Narrow bicycle lane at the end of an interrupted bicycle track (Denmark). Right: Narrow bicycle lane installed only at the junction(Denmark).

Photo credit: Authors

Truncated (interrupted or dropped) bicycle track
A truncated bicycle track stops approximately 20 metres before a junction forcing cyclists to merge
into the nearside lane with nearside-turning cars (Figure 5.35).
Figure 5.35 Truncated bicycle track in signalised junction (Copenhagen)Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013200 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

According to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009), truncated bicycle tracks reduce the number of injury
crashes with cyclists by 31% compared to a situation where the bicycle track continues right up to thejunction (without advanced stop lines). This result is statistically significant.
A number of theories have been put forward to explain why truncated bicycle tracks perform betterin terms of crash reduction than many alternative treatments. One possible and often quoted explanationis that cyclists and car drivers pay more attention to each other in mixed traffic and that cyclists are
feeling more unsafe (and thus more cautious in their behaviour at the junction) (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009).
For that same reason, many cyclists (and especially new or inexperienced cyclists) perceive truncatedbicycle tracks to be less safe than they actually are.
There are other, possibly more obvious, explanations. When the bicycle track is truncated, cyclists
have the possibility of placing themselves on the offside side of nearside-turning cars as they would in
free traffic conditions. When cyclists chose place themselves so, conflicts at the stop line are replaced bymerging manoeuvres at the beginning of the nearside-turn lane. Here cyclists and cars arrive randomly
and each can stage themselves irrespective of signal phases whereas conflicts at the stop line areconcentrated within the green signal phase.
According to (Jensen 2006), truncated bicycle tracks are the second-best solution for cyclists insignalised junctions (on roads with bicycle tracks), and should be used if it is impossible to combine anadvanced stop line with a separate nearside turn lane for cars. As noted earlier, however, this study bases
it findings only on results from one city (Copenhagen).
Truncated bicycle tracks are a suitable solution where bicycle traffic is moderate. If bicycle traffic
volumes are very high, it becomes difficult for nearside-turning car drivers (and for cyclists) to merge
with the cyclists and congestion may occur (Figure 5.36).
Figure 5.36 Truncated bicycle track at a crowded signalised junction (Copenhagen)Bicycle traffic volumes make it difficult for car drivers to mix with bicycles in the nearside turn lane.

Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 201

Central bicycle lane or “pocket lane”
A central bicycle lane is a lane for cyclists travelling straight ahead (or turning offside) in asignalised junction (Figure 5.37). The central lane is placed between the nearside turn lane and the othercar lanes. The start of the lane may be painted in blue or another contrasting colour in relation to thecarriageway to make nearside turning car drivers aware that they are crossing a bicycle lane – and todirect the bicycles travelling straight ahead into the central lane.
The central bicycle lane is closely related to the truncated bicycle track and works well with thelatter. While the truncated bicycle track makes it possible for the cyclists to place themselves on theoffside side of nearside turning cars, the central bicycle lane forces them to do so.
Figure 5.37 Central bicycle lane

Left: Central bicycle lane in a signalised junction in Norway (Oslo). Right: Central bicycle lane in a signalised junction in Denmark(Copenhagen).

Photo credit: Authors

A few research studies have been undertaken in order to estimate the safety effects of the central
bicycle lane. In general the number of bicycle crashes in these studies was too small to produce asignificant result, but there are indications that the measure improves safety for cyclists (Sørensen 2011).
Coloured bicycle crossings at junctions
Coloured cycle crossings at junctions (Figure 5.38) serve two purposes:


They indicate to cyclists where they should ride through a junction.



The warn car drivers look out for cyclists when they crossing the coloured marking.

According to (Elvik, Høye, et al. 2009), coloured bicycle crossings in signalised junctions reduce
the number of injury crashes involving cyclists by 22%. This result is statistically significant, butfindings in (Jensen 2006) indicate that the effect depends on the complexity of the junction and the

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

202 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

number of coloured crossings in the junction. According to that study, the best results are obtained injunctions with only one coloured cycle crossing.
Figure 5.38 Coloured bicycle crossings at junctions

Left: Blue bicycle crossing in Copenhagen. Right: Green bicycle crossing in Strasbourg.

Photo credit: Authors

Refuge cycle track or shunted track
Refuge or shunted cycle tracks (Figure 5.39) allow cyclists to turn to the nearside in a protected
space so as to remove potential conflicts with nearside-turning motor vehicles. Bicycle-motor vehicle
conflicts are thus removed but conflicts with pedestrians may emerge if nearside turning is allowed
irrespective of pedestrian crossing signals. We are not aware of studies that have specifically documented
the safety impact of refuge cycle tracks.
Figure 5.39 Refuge or shunted cycle track (nearside turning - Copenhagen)Photo credit: AuthorsCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 203

5.5

Other Measures

Cycle lanes in the middle of the road
Cycle lanes in the middle of the road (Figure 5.40) are currently implemented or about to be
implemented in several European countries, in one-way but also in two-way streets. We have found noevaluation studies examining the safety impacts of these facilities. According to their proponents, thefollowing improvements are expected:


Better mutual perception between cyclist and car driverPrevents from accidents when people open their car doorsDecrease of accidents at junctionsMore convenience for the cyclistTraffic calming

Better safety for pedestrians crossing streets as the cyclist isn't hidden by parked cars
Figure 5.40 Cycle path in the middle of the road

Photo credit: Direction General del Transporte, Spain

Off-side cycle lanes
Off-side cycle lanes (Figure 5.42) can be seen in several countries though we could not findevaluation studies assessing their safety impact. Designers of off-side cycling lanes expect the following
results5:
Better visibility — Drivers are better able to see bicyclists in the driver's side mirror than on
the passenger side. There is also a large blind spot on the passenger side of most vehicles.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

204 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Fewer truck conflicts — Since most loading zones are on the near side of the roadway, there
are fewer delivery trucks crossing the bike lane on the off side of the roadway.



Fewer door incidents — Since most commuters drive alone there are relatively few
passenger doors swinging open. Having the bike lane on the off side may reduce cyclist's
chance of being hit by a door when cars are parked on the off side of one-way streets andthus facing the same direction as cycling traffic.
Figure 5.42 Offside cycle lane (St. Germain-en-Laye, France)

Photo credit: Authors

Cyclist airbags
Two types of airbags for cyclists have been studied and prototyped though their commercial
prospects are unclear at present – especially given that there is no mandate for their use (unlike passenger
airbags in cars). The first relate to airbags fitted on the exterior of cars set to deploy in car-pedestrian or
cyclist collisions. The second is an experimental airbag worn by cyclists that deploys in a collision thus
mimicking the use of a helmet.
Following the development of car passenger (interior) and pedestrian (car exterior) airbags, someresearch has looked at the development of car exterior airbags for cyclists. Research from theNetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) indicates that cyclists often benefit
little from experimental airbag systems developed specifically for pedestrians. In a collision, pedestrians
end up with their heads on the hood or the lower part of the windscreen. Cyclists’ heads often hit theupper part of the windscreen or even the hard metal window stiles in the event of a frontal collision witha car. Suggestions are for cars to have exterior airbags fitted so that the majority of the windscreen on theoutside of the car is covered. One automobile manufacturer (Volvo) has announced that they will deploy
bonnet-airbag technologies on some vehicles commencing in 2013.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 205

The second type of airbag for cyclists under study (and early commercial prototyping) is intended asa replacement for the bicycle helmet. A collar complete with battery-powered motion detectors inflates
automatically in a collision once a certain acceleration threshold is met.
Cyclist detection and warning system (infrastructure)
In order to reduce the risk of crashes between nearside turning motor vehicles and cyclists, someauthorities have experimented with external cyclist detection systems – the most basic being roadsidemounted “Trixi” mirrors. These convex mirrors provide car and truck drivers with a view of theirnearside blindspot at junctions. Another alternative approach trialled in Copenhagen involves sensors
that detect and trigger a set of embedded LED lights that warn HGV and car drivers of the presence of
cyclists on the adjacent cycle track (Figure 5.4) in their nearside blindspot (Figure 5.43). We are notaware of studies documenting the crash reduction effect of such external cyclist detection devices.
Figure 5.43 Sensor-activated LED lights warning nearside turning motorists of presence of cyclist in nearside bicycle lane (Copenhagen)Flashing LEDs whencyclists on nearside track

Photo credit: Authors

Cyclist collision threat detection and response systems (vehicles)
Building on pedestrian collision threat detection and response systems available on some car models
since 2010, one manufacturer (Volvo) has announced the deployment of cyclist detection, alert andresponse systems to be deployed as an option on some car models starting in 2013. These radar-based
systems detect the sudden presence of cyclists in the car’s trajectory, alert the driver and deploy thebrakes. As in the case of cyclist airbags, the availability of cyclist collision threat detection and response
systems is a promising development. Nonetheless, it is unclear at this stage what the overall safety
impacts of the large-scale deployment of such systems may be given that drivers may modify their
behaviour in the presence of such technology.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

206 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

5.6

Diagnosis and implementing safety measures

Countries and cities that have successfully improved bicycle safety have done so via a coordinatedset of policies and measures at both the tactical (design of specific safety interventions) and strategic(“safe system” approach) levels. Success requires coordinating both of these approaches in a supportive
regulatory environment. On the tactical level, diagnosis of safety improvement targets must be built on
crash and traffic monitoring so that effective responses may be designed and implemented. Rarely will
isolated safety interventions satisfactorily improve safety and in some cases, uncoordinated responses
might make things worse. Figure 5.43 illustrates how safety improvements may result from wholesale redesign of critical elements of the traffic environment – in this case, a series of complete junction redesigns along a major thoroughfare entering the Copenhagen city centre. Here only one of several treatedjunctions is shown but similar results were found for other junction re-designs in the project – e.g. 3964% reduction for all crashes, 39-78% reduction for all injury crashes and 64-76% reduction in offsideturning crashes.
Figure 5.43 Safety improvement from complete re-design of complex junction (Copenhagen)City of Copenhagen intersection redesign: H.C. Andersen Blvd. andJarmers Plaza.
As part of a comprehensive re-designof intersections on a major strategic
gateway to Copenhagen city centre,
this intersection was re-designed
entirely to reduce crashes and personal
injuries while maintaining motorised
and non-motorised vehicle capacity. 5year ex-post evaluation results included
a 58% reduction of all crashes, a 50%
reduction of all injury crashes and a
70% reduction of left-turn crashes.

a

b

c

c

a

d
e

b

f

g

Truncated cycle track (1)Proven safety measure
allows cyclists and cars to
self-sort as they approach
the junction.

Truncated cycle track (2)Crash-reduction effects
are significant due to low
speed and better carbicycle awareness.

Refuge cycle track (1):allows cyclists on track toturn to nearside without
coming into conflict withnearside-turning vehicles.

dSignalised cyclist
crossing(1): special
signal phase for cyclists to
cut across offside-turning
vehicles before continuing
straight.

eSignalised cycle
crossing (2): special
signal phase for cyclists to
cut across nearside
turning vehicles before
signalcontinuing straight.

signalf

Refuge cycle track (2):allows bicycles and motor
vehicles to turn nearside
without coming into conflict
though pedestrian-bicycle
conflicts may arise.

gColoured bicycle
crossing: Signals bicycle
crossing path to motorists– to be used sparingly andonly for priority conflictzones.

Source: City of Copenhagen

Improving bicycle safety requires building on proven interventions and adapting them to local
conditions. The trouble-shooting table that follows is based on the findings detailed in the previous
sections. It should be seen as an indicative guide to potential infrastructure-related solutions tocommonly found bicycle safety problems. These are not prescriptive (indeed, they could not be giventhat implementing all of these would lead to conflicting traffic situations) but serve as a guide tounderstanding possible solutions for particular, oftentimes site-specific, bicycle safety hotspots.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 207

Accident problem

Hypothesis

Possible solutions

Speeds are too highSpeed reducing measures
Narrowing of lanes with edge line

Narrow, dense traffic

Bicycle lanes/bicycle and pedestrian path

Darkness, moist weather

Road lighting
Campaigns on the use of bicycle lights

Road sections
Accidents with bicyclists being run overfrom behindRoad side parking

Prohibit parking/stopping

Accidents with bicyclists hitting parked
cars

Narrow roads

Markings (parking lane)

Accidents with bicyclists hitting
pedestrians

Accidents concentrated

Refuge/verge
Raised pedestrian crossing

Wide street, accidents spread out

Center island

Sight distance from stop position notenoughClose entrance
Improve sight distance

Bicyclists are overlooked/lack of attention
because of dense and fast traffic

Close entrance
Speed reducing measures, reduce numberof lanes

Bicyclists go in the wrong direction

Sight distance improved in both directions

No sight distance in mirrors

Prohibit nearside turn
Prohibit stopping
Remove trees and other obstacles fromverge
Remove or narrow verge
Close entrance

Sight distance; check parked cars along
bicycle path

Sight distance along bicycle path improved
Prohibit offside turn
Prohibit stopping

Insufficient orientation

Blue bicycle markings
Speed reducing measures

Too high speeds

More narrow design

Problem with sight distance/Signs andother obstacles are blocking view

Improve sight distance
Replace signs and obstacles

Bicyclists are overlooked

Bicycle markings on road
Change of roundabout design/priority

Too high speeds

More narrow design

Problem with sight distance/Signs andother obstacles are blocking view

Improve sight distance by removing verge
Replace signs and obstacles

Prohibit parking

Entrances to private properties
Bicyclists on bicycle path are hit by carsfrom the entrance

Nearside turning cars/lorries hit bicyclists
going straight ahead on bicycle path

Priority junctions in general
Accidents with offside turning vehicles
hitting bicycles driving straight on bicycle
path

Roundabouts
Bicyclists are hit by entering vehicles

Bicyclists are hit by vehicles leaving theroundabout

Bicycle markings on road
Change of roundabout design/priority

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

208 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Signalised intersections
Turning cars hit bicyclists

Bicyclists are overlooked

Cross-junction bicycle markings
Avoid pre-green for nearside turning
vehiclesRight-angle collisions in far end of big
junctionsInsufficient clearance phase for slow
bicyclists

Increase amber phase

Bicyclists turn offside in front of straightgoing traffic

No waiting area or signal for cyclists

Establish waiting area
Separate signal/phase for bicyclists

Bicyclists cross on red

Long waiting time

Retime signal

Nearside turning cars/lorries hit straightgoing bicyclists

Not sufficient sight in mirrors

Staggered stop line for cars
Remove verge
Cut back bicycle track

Sight OK, but insufficient orientation

Separate regulation
Cut back bicycle track
Pre-green stage for cyclists
Avoid pre-green for nearside turning cars

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 209

Key Messages
Assessment of the effectiveness of safety measures will depend to some extent on local or national
preconditions such as culture and traditions, legislation, existing infrastructure but there are commonalities
with regards to safety-improving strategies that should not be ignored. The former should not be seen as
barriers to implementing safety measures that have proven successful.

The safety impacts of individual measures are not necessarily additive – the ultimate safety effect of multiple
measures deployed on one site will largely depend on site-specific interactions. The selection andimplementation of bicycle safety measures should be based on a site-specific diagnosis and identification of
the safety problems to be treated. Bicycle safety audits as can be helpful in this respect.



The aggregate safety effects of an extensive segregated bicycle infrastructure network may contradict theevidence of the safety performance of its component parts. Why this should be is not clearly evident fromthe study of the safety impacts of individual measures but it has been the experience of many countries thatthe coordinated, targeted and network-wide deployment of many bicycle safety measures along withsustained policy support and training of all road users contributes to high levels of bicycle safety.

Authorities should recognise that cyclists are heterogeneous and have different skills and perceptions ofsafety. These perceptions will have to be addressed alongside actions to materially improve safety if
authorities are to be successful in preserving or increasing levels of cycling.



Safety measures for cycling can be broadly categorised as those measures seeking to reduce the negative
outcomes of crashes (e.g. vehicle design and helmets) and those that seek to avoid crashes. These are notincompatible but implementing the latter is likely a necessary pre-condition for increasing cycling levels.



Because of the severity of truck-cyclist turning collisions, efforts should be made to eliminate truck nearsideand frontal blind spots through, for example, the use of mirrors or advanced stop lines for cyclists. External
detection and warning devices may also prove helpful though their safety effects remain undocumented.

Helmets are effective at reducing serious or fatal head injuries in the event of a crash but may contribute to(generally less serious) neck and facial injuries. On the other hand, their use may give rise to riskier
behaviour on the part of cyclists (and motorists) and thus increase the incidence of crashes. Crucially,
mandating their use may suppress cycling participation and thus possibly erode societal health benefits
derived from physical activity.

The effectiveness of safety-improving infrastructure treatments relies on ensuring that these operate as
intended. In order to do so, bicycle infrastructure must be maintained to a standard such that the condition of
the infrastructure does not contribute to crashes. This also requires that rules and regulations regarding motor
vehicle encroachment on bicycle facilities and governing bicycle-motor vehicle interactions are enforced.

Speed management is a critical and effective tool to avoid or otherwise reduce the severity of bicycle-motor
vehicle crashes. Where appropriate (e.g. where authorities wish to increase cycling densities, where cycle
traffic is concentrated and in distributor road networks in urban areas) speeds should set to 30km/hr andlower for mixed bicycle-motor vehicle carriageways.



In speed-control or traffic-calmed areas, care should be given to the design of speed-control devices (humps,
bollards, signage, etc.) as these may constitute hazards to cyclists.



Where speeds cannot be lowered, or where justified by traffic densities, authorities should seek to separate
bicycle and motor traffic when feasible.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

210 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES

Separated bicycle tracks are an attractive option in that they generally produce fewer and less severe crashes
in their linear sections – however this safety effect may be compromised at junctions where crashes may
increase unless specific counter-measures are undertaken. These countermeasures should remove conflicts
and reduce speed differentials among motorised and non-motorised users.

Crash risk at bicycle track/road interfaces is exacerbated by poor sight lines, un-conspicuity of cyclists tomotorists and uncertain expectations of cyclists vis-à-vis motorists and vice-versa. Proper design of junctions
that eliminate sight barriers, clearly signal likely cyclist behaviour (e.g. cross-junction bicycle markings),
physically demarcate cycling space (e.g. continuous raised cycle track across side roads), separate and givepriority to cyclists at junctions (advanced stop line, bike boxes) or harmonise behavioural expectations (e.g.
truncated bicycle track) all contribute to lower crash risk.

Roundabouts and rural (high speed) roads are two other bicycle crash black spots that should be addressedby authorities.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURES – 211

Notes

1. See (Noland 2012) for a discussion of this research.
2. See (Garrard, Rose et Sing 2008), (Lawson, et al. 2012) and (Møller et Hels 2008) for a discussion of
cyclist perception of risk for different facilities, road environments and among different groups.
3. And, incidentally, increase the risk of neck injury in the case of hard shell helmets and facial injury inthe case of soft-shell helmets.
4. These studies do, however, seem to refute the view that “European-style” bicycle infrastructure would
necessarily decrease safety in a North American context.
5. See for example www.bicyclinginfo.org

References

Andersen, Troels, Frits Bredal, Marianne Weinrich, Niels Jensen, Morten Riisgaard-Dam, and Malene
Kofod Nielsen. “Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012.” Copenhagen: Cycling Embassy of Denmark,2012.
Andersen, T., M. Nielsen, and S. Olesen. “Cyklister i kryds (Cyclists in Junctions).” Dansk Vejtidsskrift(Danish Road Journal), no. 10 (2004).
Attewell, R.G., K. Glase, and M. McFadden. “Bicyclehelmet efficacy: a meta-analysis.” Accident
Analysis & Prevention 33, no. 3 (2001): 345-352.
Bach, O., and E. Jørgensen. “Signaler og ulykker – effekt af ombygninger (Signals and Accidents –effects of measures).” Copenhagen: Vejdirektoratet (Road Directorate), 1986.
Bambach, M.R., R.J. Mitchell, R.H. Grzebieta, and J. Olivier. “The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle
colissions with motor vehicles: A case-control study.” Accident Analysis and Prevention,
2013: 78-88.
CROW. “Handboek Wegontwerp (Handbook Road Design).” 2002.
Daniels, S., S. Brijs, T. Nuyts, and G. Wets. “Roundabouts and safety for bicyclists: empirical results andinfluence of different cycle facilities design.” paper presented at the TRB National Roundabout
Conference. Kansas City, MO, 2008.
De Brabander, B., B. Nuyts, and L. Vereeck. “Road safety effects of roundabouts in Flanders.” Journal of
Safety Research 36, no. 3 (2005): 289–296.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

212 – 5. REVIEW OF BICYCLE SAFETY MEASURESde Jongh, Piet. “The health impact of mandatory bicycle helmet laws.” Risk Analysis 2012, 2012.
Delmonte, E., et al. “Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety.” Transportation Research Laboratory,
January 2013.
Dill, Jennifer, Christopher M. Monsere, and Nathan McNeil. “Evaluation of bike boxes at signalizedintersections.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 44, no. 1 (2012): 126-134.
District of Columbia Department of Transportation. “Bicycle Facility Evaluation.” Washington, DC:
District of Columbia Department of Transportation, April 2012.
Elvik, R. “Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicyclehelmet efficacy: A re-analysis
of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 43, no. 3 (2011): 1245–
1251.
Elvik, R., A. Høye, T. Vaa, and M. Sørensen. The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. Bingly: Emerald
Group Publishing, Ltd., 2009.
Fyhri, Aslak, and Ross O. Phillips. “Emotional reactions to cycle helmet use.” 50 (2013): 59-63.
Fyhri, Aslak, Torkel Bjørnskau, and Agathe Backer-Grøndahl. “Bicycle helmets: A case of risk
compensation?” Transport Research Part F, 2012: 612-624.
Helman, S., H. Ward, N. Christie, and F. McKenna. “Using behavioural measures to evaluate road safety
schemes: Detailed guidance for practitioners.” Wokingham: Transport Research Laboratory,
March 2011.
Hels, T., and M. Møller. “Cyklistsikkerhed i rundkørsler (Bicycle Safety in Roundabouts).” Lyngby:
Danmarks TransportForskning, 2007.
HVU. “Krydsulykker mellem cykler og biler (Accidents between Cyclists and Motor Vehicles at Road
Junctions).” Copenhagen: Havarikommissionen for Vejtrafikulykker (Danish Road Traffic
Accident Investigation Board), 2008.
—. “Ulykker mellem højresvingende lastbiler og ligeudkørende cyklister (Accidents between Trucks
Turning Right and Bicycles Going Straight Ahead).” Copenhagen: Havarikommissionen for
Vejtrafikulykker (Danish Road Traffic Accident Investigation Board), 2006.
Jensen, S.U. “Effekter af cykelstier og cykelbaner (Effects of Bicycle Tracks and Bicycle Lanes).”
Lyngby: Trafitec, 2006.
—. “Effekter af overkørsler og blå cykelfelter (Effects of Exit Constructions and Blue Bicycle
Crossings).” Lyngby: Trafitec, 2006.
Jensen, S.U. “Erstatning af stibomme (Replacement of Bicycle Path Bars).” Dansk Vejtidsskrift (Danish
Road Journal), no. 11 (2003).
—. “Smalle cykelbaner ved lyskryds (Narrow Bicycle Lanes at Signalised Junctions).” Lyngby: Trafitec,
2010.
Jensen, S.U. “Trafiksanering – en sikker løsning (Traffic Calming – a Safe Solution).” Dansk
Vejtidsskrift (Danish Road Journal), no. 10 (2007).
Jensen, S.U., et al. “Idékatalog for cykeltrafik (Collection of Cycle Concepts).” Copenhagen:Vejdirektoratet (Road Directorate), 2000.
Jensen, S.U., P. Andersson, and L. Herrstedt. “Håndbog, Trafiksikkerhed, Effekter afVejtekniske
Virkemidler (Handbook, Road Safety Effects, Road Engineering Meassures).” Copenhagen:Vejdirektoratet (Road Directorate), 2010.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

5. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES – 213

Knight, I. A study of the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of blind spot mirrors
to HGVs. Transport Research Laboratory, 2011.
Ligtermoet, Dirk. “Bicycle policies of the European principals: continuous and integral.” Utrecht:
Fietsberaad (Expertise Centre for Cycling Policy), 2009.
Lusk, Anne C., Peter G. Furth, Patrick Morency, Luis F. Miranda-Moreno, Walter C. Willett, and Jack T.
Dennerlein. “Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street.” Injury Prevention,
2011.
Madsen, Jens Christian Overgaard. “Kørelys på Cykel (Daytime Running Lights on Bicycles).” Aalborg:
Aalborg University, 2006.
Mairie de Paris, “Les double sens cyclable à Paris : Bilan à un an ‐ Octobre 2011 », Mairie de Paris,
Paris, 2012.
Minikel, Eric. “Cyclist safety on bicycle boulevards and parallel arterial routes in Berkeley.” Accident
Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012): 241–247.
Nabors, Dan, Elissa Goughnour, Libby Thomas, William DeSantis, Michael Sawyer, and Kevin
Moriarty. “Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists.” Washington DC: UnitedStates Federal Highway Administration, May 2012.
Noland, Robert B. “From theory to practice in road safety policy: Understanding risk versus mobility.”
Research in Transportation Economics in press (2012).
Parkin, John, and Ciaran Meyers. “The effect of cycle lanes on the proximity between motor traffic andcycle traffic.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2010: 159-165.
Phillips, R.O., A. Fyrhi, and F. Sagberg. “Risk compensation and bicycle helmets.” Risk Analysis 31,
no. 8.
Pucher, John, and Ralph Buehler. “Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark,and Germany.” Transport Reviews 28, no. 4 (2008): 495–528.
Pucher, John, Jennifer Dill, and Susan Handy. “Infrastructure, programs and policies to increase
bicycling: An international review.” Preventative Medicine 50, no. Supplement (2010): S106–
S125.
Pucher, John, Ralph Buehler, and Mark Seinen. “Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update
and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy andPractice 45, no. 6 (2011): 451–475.
Reid, Stuart, and Simon Adams. “Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety.” Transport Research Laboratory,
December 2010.
Reynolds, Conor C. O., M. Anne Harris, Kay Teschke, Peter A. Cripton, and Meghan Winters. “The
impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: A review of thelitterature.” Environmental Health 8, no. 47 (2009).
Robinson, D.L. “Bicycle helmet legislation: Can we reach a consensus?” Accident Analysis andPrevention, 2007: 86-93.
Rosbach, O. “Kantlinjer forbedrer både bilisters og cyklisters sikkerhed (Edge lines improve safety forboth cars and bicycles).” Dansk Vejtidsskrift (Danish Road Journal), 1984.
Rosen, E., H. Stigson, and U. Sander . “Literature review of pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car
impact speed.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 43, no. 1 (2011).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

214 – 5. CYCLING, SAFETY, HEALTH AND POLICY-NECESSARY LINKAGES, SUGGESTED APPROACHES

Schepers, P., and K. Klein Wolt. “Single-bicycle crash types and characteristics.” Cycling ResearchInternational, 2012.
Sørensen, M. “Centralt opmærket cykelbane (Centrally marked Bicycle Lane).” Trafik og Veje / Dansk
Vejtidsskrift (Danish Road Journal), no. 01 (2011).
SWOV. “Blind spot crashes.” Leidschendam: SWOV, 2009.
Teft, Brian C. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Edited by AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety. Washington DC, 2011.
Teschke, Kay. “Impact of transportation infrastructure on risk of injuries while cycling: Results of the
Bicyclists' Injuries and the Cycling Environment.” Vancouver, 2012.
Teshke, Kay, et al. “Route infrastructure and the risk of injuries to bicyclists: A case-crossover study.”
American Journal of Public Health 102, no. 12 (2012).
Turner, Shane, Rohit Singh, Tracy Allatt, and Gary Nates. “Effectiveness and Selection of Treatments
for Cyclists at Signalised Intersections.” Austroads Research Report. Edited by Tim Hughes.
Sydney: Austroads Ltd., May 2011.
Walker, Ian. “Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use
and apparent gender.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2007: 417-425.
Wood, K., I. Summersgill, L.F. Crinson, and J.A. Castle. “Effect of side raised entry treatments on roadsafety in London.” Wokingham: Transport Research Laboratory, October 2006.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX A. – 215

Annex A. Working group questionnaire on bicycle safety and crashcharacteristics

All Working Group member countries were sent a questionnaire asking for the number of crashes
for different levels of each of the crash characteristics listed below.
Time of dayDay of weekSeasonSurface conditions



LocationCycling infrastructure type

Speed limitConfiguration of infrastructureUse of bicycle helmetCrash type

Road-user/object involved



Fault



Manoeuvre

Member countries were asked to complete the questionnaire at the national level four times:For fatal crashes between 2005-2009



For injury crashes between 2005-2009



For fatal crashes for the most recent year (specifying which year)For injury crashes for most recent year (specifying which year)

We asked for crash numbers, because most countries do not have reliable exposure information,with which to calculate rates. Population-based rates are not very useful, given the vastly different
cycling participation levels and patterns in different countries, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 3. Because
our main concern is to consider crash patterns, and to compare these across countries, we present ourdata in terms of the percentage of all cycle crashes represented by each level of each characteristic. Thisaccounts to some extent for cycling exposure per se. It does not account for exposure to different levelsof each characteristic, so that, for example, the greatest proportion of bicycle crashes occur during the
day simply because more cycling occurs during the day. Nonetheless, for the purposes of designing andCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

216 – ANNEX A.

targeting policy and interventions, arguably what is important is that greatest proportion of bicycle
crashes occur during a day (even if this is due to exposure).
We recognized that not all countries have the information requested at the national level, and so we
asked that such countries provide the information at the highest level available (e.g. at a city level). We
also identified that we would accept data for fatal and injury crashes together (e.g. from police-reports),
or for a different year range, if nothing else were available.
We understood that different countries have different ways of categorising particular variables (e.g.
time of day, location), and asked that countries use their own categorization while providing us with theirdefinition of the categories.
Finally we asked that countries provide us with information about the source of the data (e.g. policereport versus hospitalization), and the criteria for inclusion in the dataset. This allows consideration of
the likely biases in the data.
Questionnaire Results
We assumed that when questionnaire cells, or a whole table, were left empty, then the data were notavailable. Table A.1 summarises the data we received back from the member countries. Most data werereported at the national level. Exceptions are indicated in Table A.1. We also received separate input
from Korea (from the Korean Transportation Safety Authority) – this data is included in the discussion of
the questionnaire results where appropriate. Detailed findings from crash microanalysis in Korea arepresented in Box 4.2.
We received more complete questionnaire data for the year range (2005-2009) than for the mostrecent year, and could supplement with data from Australia (Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2006),
the UK (Knowles et al, 2009) and the US (NHTSA 2009) for different year ranges (where indicated inTable A.1). We also considered year range data to be more reliable. Thus, we have reported the year
range data in preference to the data from the most recent year, except in the case of Poland for which we
only received data from the most recent year (2010).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX A. – 217

Table A.1. Questionnaire responses for data on cycling crash characteristics
Fatal

InjuryDenmark

FranceGermany

Australiaa

Belgium

Denmark

Franceb

Germany

Polandc

Y

Y

Y

Y*

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Day

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Season

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Weather

Y#

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Location

Y

#

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Infrastructure

..

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

Speed limit

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Configuration

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

Y

..

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

Y

Helmet?

Y

#

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

Type

Y^

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Road-user

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

..

Y

..

Y

Y

Y

..

..

Y

Fault

Y^

..

Y

..

..

..

Y

..

Y

..

..

..

Y

Manoeuvre

Y^

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

Y*

..

..

Spain

Spain

Belgium

Time

PolandAustralia

2005-2009 Year
range

Most recent year
Time
Day

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

Season

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

Weather

..

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

Y

Y

Y*

Y

Location

..

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

Y

Y

Y

Y

Infrastructure

..

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

Speed limit

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

Configuration

..

Y

Y

..

Y

..

..

..

Y

Y

Helmet?

..

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

..

Type

..

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Road-user

Y

Y

Y

Y

..

..

..

Y

Fault

..

..

Y

..

..

..

..

Manoeuvre

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

..
Y

..

..

Y

..

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

Y

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

..

Y

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

Y

Y

..

..

..

..

a

Data at state level (Victoria); bData for fatal and injury crashes combined, year-range data is for Paris City (infrastructure, road-user, andmanoeuvre), and Lille metropolitan area, and national data is for 2009; cData for fatal and injury crashes at city level (Warsaw);# For year range 2001-2004; ^ For year range 1996-2000; time of day and weather simply classified into day and night, and dry and wet,respectively.

More complete data were available for fatal crashes than for injury crashes, but we considered it
worth reporting both (separately) in order to allow a comparison of patterns for crashes of different
severity. The Polish data we received, and much of the UK data (Knowles et al., 2009), are for fatal andserious injury crashes combined, and so we report this with the injury crashes from other countries, but
the inclusion of fatal crashes may produce a somewhat different pattern for these countries.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

218 – ANNEX A.

Data were police-reported data for all respondent countries. As noted in Chapter 1, bicycle crash
and injury under-reporting is endemic to many countries. Further, many crashes are not recorded either inpolice-reported or hospitalization data. The likelihood of inclusion in official records increases withinjury severity, and so the data can be considered to be most accurate for fatal crashes.
In the questionnaire responses, Denmark and Germany reported a time-frame for fatalities of 30days. Spain reported a time-frame of 24 hours. Other countries did not report the time-frame. For datafrom the EU CARE database, deaths are deaths occurring within 30 days (suicides and natural deaths notincluded) and serious injuries concern victims injured and hospitalised at least 24 hours.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX B. – 219

Annex B. Policy measures derived from stated preference analysis
for bicycle use: Route choice factors in the Indian context

Prof. Geetam TIWARI(Professor, TRIPP / Civil Engineering Department, IIT Delhi, India)
Himani JAIN
(Project Scientist, TRIPP and Research Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, IIT Delhi, India)
Summary
Cyclists are spread all over the urban areas in India. These are mostly captive riders who choose tobicycle as no other viable options are available to them. This study discusses perceptions of these captive
riders as compared to a group of not yet riding (potential) users (short trip makers). A stated preference
survey was conducted to estimate their perception on route choice, preferred street environment and land
use features.
The perception of risk among captive riders and potential riders does not show much difference asagainst popular beliefs. Both the captive users as well as the potential users focus on physical safety andthe difficulties in crossing junctions. Differences arise in perception of comfort / attractiveness andbarriers. Pedestrians / bus commuters waiting at the curb side lane are considered as predominant barriers(about 28%) by potential users while captive riders are more tolerant to them. Results indicate thatperception of safety and comfort are not related to type of zone and distance travelled. The presence of
informal sector on the street side is social security element and attractive for providing services for
captive cyclists. However, the potential users consider informal sector as a barrier. Results show
potential users perceive slope as bigger threat to bicycle compatibility as compared to captive riders.
Captive riders prefer wider arterial roads against the narrow roads preferred by potential cyclists. The
paper also discusses policy implication of bicycle facility planning.
B.1.

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents an analysis of risk perceptions and preferences related to bicycling in Indian
context. This is done employing a discreet choice modeling framework, consisting of 2 stated preference(SP) experiments and several ranking questions. The current research contributes to the literature of nonmotorized travel in developing south Asian countries. This also contributes to literature on commuter
cyclists (mostly captive in Indian context) and potential user’s route choice related preferences throughthe analysis of 16 determinants of street operations and environment. This paper is based on a survey of1400 respondents in the city of Pune, India.
The study is important for various reasons. First, it’s important for the understanding of differencesin the two predominant groups viz. current cyclists and potential users. This is important especially in the
many south Asian developing countries as cycling are not by choice. Therefore, this distinction among
captive users and choice travelers will enrich the understanding for designing bicycle policies in shortterm and in long term. Second, up to 75% trips in small and medium Indian cities are short trips (lessthan 6 km, cycle-able); providing base of latent bicycle trips. Third, understanding route choiceCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

220 – ANNEX B.

determinants for cycling can help its integration with urban planning and among the automobile basedtransport planning. Fourth, this study can provide guidelines for designing of bicycle facilities ensuring
the safety and minimizing fatalities. There are various other obvious societal benefits like alleviating
traffic related problems of congestion, pollution, noise etc; increased mobility, freedom and greater
accessibility to students and those who cannot drive.
The bicycle planning involves primarily demand estimation and network analysis. This study shallbe able to contribute majorly to the network analysis by quantifying the preferences which can be used todetermine the route, facilities and framework for bicycle compatible development.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section discusses the Indian context in detailand prepares the background of typical city in contrast to many European and American cities. Section 3
discusses the earlier studies in the area of bicycle users and bicycle route planning to identify the scopeof study. Section 4 describes the sampling, questionnaire development and survey design. Section 5
describes the empirical results of survey. Section 6 describes the stated preference experiments and theirresults. Section 7 highlights the important findings from the research.
B.2.

BICYCLE IN INDIAN CONTEXT

Bicycle is an important commuting mode for poor urban workers and students in Indian cities. It is
an important means of mobility particularly for short trips in medium and large Indian cities. The
medium (1-3 million) and larger (3-5 million) cities have a typical bicycle modal share of 13%-21%.
Cycle trips might be as low as 7-10% in mega cities, however their absolute numbers are still large incomparison to many European cities. (1). But, contrary to most European cities the majority of them are
captive riders i.e. they use bicycle because other preferred modes cannot be used for financial constraints
or non-availability.
The high ownership levels of bicycles (2), its low cost and easy use make it a desirable mode oftransport for students and low income workers. A large amount of utility cycling is present in Indian
cities because the bicycles are the most affordable and only form of transport available to low income
households. The subsidized public transport also remains cost prohibitive to them. (3, 4)
The time trend analysis in various cities shows a sharp decline in bicycle trip share during the 80’s
and 90’s. During this period all these cities experienced a high growth rate of motorized vehicles androad infrastructure improvements (primarily road widening and construction of grade separatedjunctions). The dedicated infrastructure for bicycling is not present in any city as a network. (1)Bicyclists face a high risk of getting involved in fatal traffic crash. It is observed that cyclists are
involved in 5% to 10% of total road related fatalities in medium and large cities. About 20% to 32%
cyclists are involved in crashes leading to severe injuries to bicycle users. (5) However despite the lackof safe infrastructure, high risks of fatal crashes and lack of favourable policies for cycling, bicycle trips
have not disappeared completely. There is a need to provide a safe and comfortable bicycle infrastructure
to these captive cyclists as well as to harness the potential user market.
B.3.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on non-motorized transportation planning does not fully address the unique context inwhich developing world cities function, such as large population, low incomes, high density, low car
ownership, short trips, high mix of informal housing and commerce, and poly-nucleated city structures.
Data from Indian cities shows two main groups of bicycle users: the captive users and the potential users.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX B. – 221

Captive users
Income plays a significant role in influencing transportation choices people have. Where there isextensive poverty in Indian cities, it is most important to ensure that the modes used by the poor continue
to remain available as safe travel options. Although walking costs nothing, it takes a lot of time for all
but very short trips. Cycling often offers four or five times greater speed and is cheaper than public
transport. Irrespective of city size, the poor continue to be dependent on non-motorized transport modes
for mobility in many Asian cities. (6)Some people are forced to depend on only a specific vehicle because their choice sets areconstrained, i.e. they have no other alternative to choose from or their preferred alternative is out of theiracceptable financial means. The limitations on their choice set may arise from their own abilities (e.g.
their ability to operate other vehicles or their ability to afford the cost of using another vehicle) or fromenvironmental conditions (e.g. the lack of a public transportation service). Such travellers are regarded ashaving structural dependences on a vehicle (7) and they are called ‘‘captive riders’’ of that vehicle. (8) In
Indian cities this is true for most cyclists; they are often poor people living in slums, travelling longer
than walk-able distances. Hence, in the present study, captivity is defined by financial constraints
especially applicable to low income workers and students (those with no vehicles or driving knowledge).
Travel patterns of low income group living in informal housing or slums are very different fromresidents in formal housing. Generally, cycling and walking account for 50 to 75% of the commuter trips
for those in the informal sector. Their socio-economic conditions are such, that they do not own any
other motorized vehicles. Even the highly subsidized public transport services remain non affordable tothem (>12% of their income). They are forced to ride bicycles for long distances in high speed mix
traffic. The bicycles are essential for access to their employment. They are means for survival to themand also important for poverty alleviation. This captive group takes high risk, and hence it is important tounderstand the needs of these captive riders. With this understanding it will be possible to create better
bicycle infrastructure and facilities that cater for the direct and shortest possible routes between theirmajor origins and destinations thus enabling safe access to employment. (9, 10)
Potential Users
There is, also a group of people who would like to cycle and could be persuaded to cycle under theright circumstances. (11). A large number of students continue to use bicycles in small and medium size
cities in India. However in large cities a substantial number of students commute to school by bus orother motorized vehicles even for short distances. Potential bicycle users in the present study are young
students and workers owning a bicycle, who travel short distances (less than 6 km) and are currently
using motorized modes. These groups might use bicycle if safe and comfortable travelling conditions
prevail. For example, many parents do not allow their children to cycle to school because safe segregatedcycle paths are rare. (9, 10) Most of the available literature from western context targets student
population, who could not afford a car, travels shorter distances and who do not like to rely on infrequent- uncomfortable public transport. (12) While the focus in available literature has been on possible modal
shifts and benefits, little has been researched on user behaviour, perception and needs of a typical low
income country city, where there is a great potential for cycling.
High ownership of bicycles and predominance of short trips in Indian cities offer supportive
conditions for bicycles. In medium size cities, 35% - 65% households own one or more bicycles (2).
Despite the high ownership of bicycles in urban areas in India, the typical modal share in large cities iscomparatively low. The average trip length for all vehicles (excluding walk) in medium and large cities
varies from 4.2- 6.9 km. It is observed from the trip length frequency distribution that 56% to 72% trips

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

222 – ANNEX B.

are short trips (below 6km, the typically cycle-able distance). This can be partly explained by the highresidential density, mixed land use developments and poly-nucleated city structures present in Indian
cities. (13). Hence, it can be argued that there should be a substantially large latent demand (of potential
users) in Indian urban communities, who may use bicycles if safe circumstances prevail.
For bicycle as a means of transport, safety plays an important role and (14) safe conditions (to park
and to ride) affect bicycle use. The socio-economic characteristics, income, gender, education level andcar ownership levels vary with culture and country, thus affecting the bicycle use. For instance, in Chile
bicycle is more used by men, low income groups, people who don’t own a car and have low educationlevel. In India, work is the main purpose for bicycle trips, although shopping is also an important motive.
(15, 16, 17) The “barrier effect” reduces cycling mobility, and increases driving. These impacts tend to
be inequitable because disadvantaged populations who depend on non-motorized transport bear adisproportionate share of the costs. (18) While captivity does not have an important role in American andEuropean context, it plays a stronger and definitive role in South Asian context.
Route Choice Factors
The link level and route level factors along with this many social variables seems to play adefinitive role that affect route choice. (19). The link-level factors influencing route choice may include
bicycle facility presence and motor vehicle traffic characteristics (20,21,22,23), parking characteristics(24,25,26), riding surface quality (23,26,27) and hilliness (28). A substantial amount of previous researchon bicycle facilities has focused on examining the impact of link-level factors on route choice and related
decisions. (19) The factors considered in these studies have included geometric configuration measuredby automobile lane width and the number of driveways/side streets providing access to the link andmotor vehicle factors like speed, volume, and percentage of heavy vehicles etc. Few studies consider
bicycle facility factors like width of bicycle lane or separate path and pavement factors.
Most Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS), including Bicycle compatibility models, stress-level index,
hazard score and junction level-of-service models, measure the suitability of roadways for bicycle travel.
(24-30) Many RP based route choice studies have indicated commuter bicyclists prefer directness enroute to their work place, willingness to detour to use bicycle facilities, and commuter bicyclists nonpreference for turns, hills, major roads, and off-road routes, signalized traffic control and sensitivity toroute travel time. (31, 32)
Most of the measures in these studies rely on the analyst’s judgment regarding the importance ofeach link-level factor. Thus, though the measures provide quantitative indices of facility rating andperformance, they are developed through qualitative weightings of the various link-level attributes.
However to get rid of this drawback, study by Bovy and Bradley (27) used SP survey and found thattravel time is the most important consideration in route evaluation, followed by surface quality, trafficlevel, and facility type. Abraham et al. (33) also used SP survey to find that commuter bicyclists werewilling to incur additional travel time to use routes with bicycle facilities. A very few handful studies
also focus on parking controls, and adjacent land-use attributes.
Summary and Scope of Current Study
Most of these studies did not look into the street environment from the bicyclist’s perspective. The
measures related to land use like type of built environment, density, land use intensity and mix, presenceof informal sector etc. also may influence the safety and comfort (especially in South Asian cities). An
appropriate measure of safety, comfort and social security in the context of Indian cities also require
people's preference evaluation of street environment.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX B. – 223

B.4.

SURVEY DESIGN

Pune city (previously known as bicycle city of India, in western state Maharashtra, India) has been
selected for this study. Pune city has a history of high bicycling modal share (currently 13%), Bicycle
Master Plans exists since 1982 and dedicated bicycle tracks since late 1980’s. Considering this and otherlogistics, the Pune city is taken as the representative city for small (population size 1-3million) andmedium (population size 3-5million) cities in India. The city has an area of 250 square kilometers withan estimated population of over 3.15 million (2010).
Objectives of the study were To understand the socio-economic and travel profile of predominant groups among short trip
makers.
To compare the route preferences of current bicycle users and potential bicycle users.

Sampling, target groups and zoning
In our case stratified random sampling was done to capture those who are making a short trip (<6km) in the city of Pune. To reduce sampling errors, zones are stratified by land use and proportionate
sample size within each zone is worked out. Pre-questionnaire judgment was made based on distance
between predominant origin and destination (should be less than 6 kms). Age had to be more then 10 (forunderstanding the questionnaire and responding).
Questionnaire development and survey
A testing of designed questionnaire was conducted on a focus group; in the pilot survey of 300
households, (34) it was observed that despite simplification, filling out the questions appeared to be acomplex task requiring a lot of explanation. Some people in the pilot survey could not suggest
improvements as they appeared to be happy with the environment where they are bicycling. They had no
idea what could be better in terms of type of infrastructure or segregated facilities, simply because they
have never experienced it. Ranking / choice based pairs of different options seemed to be better in thesituation where all the questions were asked by the interviewer orally, showing relevant pictures whennecessary. In Indian context, bicyclists are mostly literate with at least secondary education but are
unwilling to fill questionnaire themselves. Hence pictorial presentations were adopted for ease and thenumber of levels is kept to a minimum of 2 with only 4 attributes at a time.
A stratified sample of 1400 (99% confidence level and 5% error), bicyclists and potential users(short trip makers) were captured for representing typical socio-economic strata. These are the people
who are likely to govern and be affected by the improvements in bicycle infrastructure and facilities. The
target groups were broadly divided as captive users and potential users, using the first section ofinterview.
B.5.

RESULTSOf all the respondents, 19.40% are cyclists who take the bicycle to workplace, school, grocery,social places and other destinations (captive riders mostly). 80.60% are potential cyclists who presently
do not cycle but they own/can afford a bicycle and travel short distances. About 59% are male
respondents and 25% of total interviewed were students below age of 19 years, about 57% are adults (2049 years) mostly workers or home makers, and about 18% in their late adulthood (50+ years). Cyclists
are mostly students and workers while potential users are other short trip makers like home makers,
students and workers.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

224 – ANNEX B.

Social Profile
Current cyclists are mostly primary or secondary level educated while potential users are mostly sr.
secondary or graduate. The cycling use in urban context decreases with increasing education and income.
Similarly current captive cyclists belong to the category of the poor (12%) and / low income group(41%). While the potential bicyclists are observed to be in categories of middle income groups (42%)
and higher income groups (5%).
Bicycle is used by 20% of the people surveyed. It was found that these are all captive cyclists.
Captive riders are defined here as those who use bicycle for commuting, cannot afford other modes oftransport and whose work place is beyond walk able distance. And the remaining 80% people surveyed
are the potential users. Potential bicycle users are defined here as those whose (one side) trip length isless than 6 km, own a bicycle but are commuting using either bus or motorized vehicle(car/scooter/motorbike/auto).
Travel Profile
26.3% of regular bicycle users are school/college students. Also 30% of cycle destinations are work
related like office, job, and factory etc. and 18% trips are for shops / banks / accessing amenities etc. (forwork as well as other purposes). The average trip distance is about 3.9 km for cyclists (ranging between
1.8km to 6.0 km) taking about on an average 22 minutes (ranging 10-40 minutes) at the speed of 10-12km /hr. The travel costs are mentioned to be negligible but sometimes in the range of Indian Rupees 2-6
per day referring mainly to maintenance and in rare cases parking. Potential cycle trips are identified tobe mostly of the short work related trips to offices, factories and shops and some other short trips are toschool and college. These trips are mostly on motorized two wheelers (20%) or walk (22%), and on
public transport (36%). The average trip distance being 4.6km consuming about 26 minutes on anaverage, costing about Indian Rupees 10-40 per day. (Approximately 45 INR = 1 USD)
Risks
Out of every three cyclists, two have experienced some kind of accident / crash. The biggest
deterrents to cyclists are the fear of accidents (30%) from other vehicles. It is closely followed byconcerns like crossing junctions and no space on roads (18% and 22% respectively). Potential cyclists
too are deterred from using bicycle as mode for the fear of accidents from other vehicles. The issue ofless space on roads along with the bad roads is most important dissuading factors for choosing bicycle asmode. Contrary to belief, few (7%) cited the reasons of socially unacceptable / poor man’s vehicle status
as a reason for not using bicycle.
Preferences to Surroundings
Current cyclists (captive riders) preferred residential areas (76%) as routes; followed by the mix ofcommercial activities in the residential areas (13%). Few preferred purely commercial (3%) areas as well
as extremely low density areas for the regular bicycle routes. The low density areas and residential areas(9% and 80%) are perceived as the ones most attractive by potential users. By all kinds of captive
cyclists and potential users, purely commercial areas and increasing mix of commercial andmanufacturing activities are seen as non attractive for cycling. The most common reasons for not taking
the shortest possible routes are designated one ways (50% of cases) by the traffic police. Other common
reasons being poor pavement quality (25%) and large traffic volume of motorized traffic (5%).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX B. – 225

Key Variables
It is observed from previous studies (9,10) that following key variables /factors appear to be mostimportant in the context of Indian cities. The survey was focused to collect the weightages for different
parameters like physical safety, social safety, barrier etc. which affect the route choice of bicycle andconsequently affects choice of bicycle as travel mode. (TABLE 1)
The parameters physical safety and junctions are assigned approximately 30% and 22% weights
respectively both by captive riders and potential users. A further detailed disaggregated analysis of thephysical non-safety perception reveals various aspects which affect it. This is not in any particular orderor hierarchy with almost the same weight age attached to each attribute. Slightly higher importance is
attached with buses in curb lane and speed of motorized vehicles (~29%). It is considered a threat moreby current captive cyclists. Probably, experience with ill designed and ill maintained existing bicycle
tracks prompted low response to dedicated bicycle infrastructure Potential users are more concernedwith volume of motorized vehicles and to them, segregation with bicycle tracks (about 25.5%) seems to
be a better solution to deal with dangerous aspects of cycling on road.
The predominant differences were evident (Table B.1) among the captive riders and potential users
with respect to social security aspects. Detailed ranking results showed that captive riders attach highpositive value to informal sectors on road side (30% weight) and to the fellow bicyclists and pedestrians(25%). The informal sector presence makes streets relatively crime free and safer for women, children
and the elderly. (4, 5) On the other hand, potential users attach high value to street lighting (27.2%) andto other bicyclists and pedestrians (25.6%).
While, a detailed understanding of the type and frequency of barriers on the curb side lane revealed
that pedestrians / bus commuters waiting (about 27.4%) at the curb side lane are considered as
predominant barriers by potential riders. But it seems current captive cyclists are more tolerant to them.
Poor pavement quality on curb side is the biggest barrier to captive riders. One of the other factors which
act as major deterrents for bicycle travel is street side parked vehicles on the curb side lanes (25%).
Gradients / undulating topography are also considered to be barriers especially f captive riders.
The junctions have been disaggregated to roundabouts, uncontrolled MV entry/exit, crossings andtype of junctions (signalized / un-signalized). The perception of risk among captive riders and potential
users does not show much difference. Un-signalized crossings are ranked much higher (27% weight) on
risk and are still considered more difficult to cross (especially while turning right in left side driving
Indian context). Surprisingly, this is closely followed by the signalized crossings (26%) mostly without
any markings, signage, priority boxes in front for cyclists etc. Roundabouts rank just higher than theuncontrolled motorized vehicles entry /exit (from properties / land use). (Table 1) The rankings arelimited to the linear weights given by analyst for the various aspects. In the next section of the study
pictorial sets were used to determine respondent’s preferences to physical and environmental attributes ofroutes / streets in a SP choice experiment.
B.6.

CHOICE BASED SP EXPERIMENT

All alternatives in a SP experiment need to be identified based on the global utility maximizing rule.
In case where large number of alternatives tends to exist, the analyst can use experiments that that do notname the alternatives (i.e. analyst defines generic or unlabelled alternatives). Unlabelled experiments are
only appropriate for the exploratory research. The paper includes both the experiments as unlabelled forthe simple reason of presence of too many / numerous alternatives among the street type and designs andoperations.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

226 – ANNEX B.

It is more appropriate in this case to estimate utility function generic to the general class of good orservice. (Unlabelled experiments) (Table B.2) The list and definition of 8 attributes and their levels
which together explain the alternatives is prepared. This is done in our case out of a comprehensive listof about 40 attributes (from literature) from the focus group and pilot of 300 respondents. The concept ofinter- attribute correlation while identifying the attributes to be used in the experiment must be
considered. (35) Since, the influence of land use and street characters on non motorized transport has notbeen explored in Indian context; this is a unique research in the context.
The first experiment is designed (full factorial and unlabelled) keeping most effective and common
attributes (from literature) that influence the route choice like conditions on curb side lane and otherstreet operations. South Asian cities function in a unique context of large population, low incomes, highdensity, low car ownership, short trips, high mix of informal housing and commerce, and poly-nucleatedcity structures. For non motorized modes, these land use and street environment elements along withstreet operations play an important role. Hence the second experiment (full factorial and unlabelled) has
been designed to understand the impact of these upon the current bicycle users and potential users.
The estimation results of random coefficients, and individual’s specific coefficients have beenobtained using computer software BIOGEME version 1.5 for these unlabelled full factorial SP
experiments. The results of the discrete choice estimation provide four main outputs: (1) Coefficientestimates (2) T-statistics and standard errors, (3) Log-Likelihood measures, and (4) Rho Squared
goodness of fit. The captive group data and potential user data are modeled separately for the main
effects only. Utility function generic to the general class of good or services has been estimated tounderstand the weights attached by total short trip makers (combined data) and captive users (-c) vs.
potential users (-pu). (Table B.3)
As the terrain is flat, the utility is high; also when the pavement quality is better, the utility is high.
When the parked vehicles are less, the utility is high. Captive cyclists give high weight-age to pavement
quality and parked vehicles. While, the potential users see the pedestrians on the curb side lane as thebiggest barriers followed by slope. The coefficient for pedestrians as barriers for captive cyclists is
positive and significant. It is evident that cyclists are more tolerant to pedestrians on the curb side lane.
This may be inferred as having direct implication to safety. Also it is comparatively easier to negotiatepedestrians while cycling then motorized vehicles (moving / parked) in the curb side lane. Parked
vehicles pose a greater threat to physical safety of cyclists while moving in and out of parking or when amotorized four wheeler door suddenly opens. For both the captive and potential user model in the SP
experiment 1 has excellent goodness of fit.
In the overall model density is insignificant. But for captive cyclists the Density is significant at
95% confidence level and the utility value increases with increase in density. All the other values for
captive and potential users attributes are significant at 95% confidence level or higher. Table 3 shows
similar coefficients attached by the captive riders and the potential riders to different attributes; except
for the coefficient value attached to slope. This can be partially explained by the non-existent bicycle
infrastructure /facilities which led captive cyclists to choose shortest distance and on at least one side of
the trip, the slope is in favour. While potential cyclists who have a choice of other motorized vehicle see
it as bigger threat to bicycle compatibility.
While comparing the road related factors (the SP experiment 2 for comfort and attractiveness), there
is a difference in captive riders preferring wider roads (despite high speeds, high volumes of motorized
vehicles) against the narrower / lower hierarchy roads preferred by potential cyclists. Since captive
cyclists have no other affordable option available, they are used to higher risks in mix / fast traffic andprefer shorter direct routes for quick commutation (which are often served by arterials and sub arterials).

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX B. – 227

Potential users attach high weight-age to comfort and less conflicting road situations. And also for both
captive and potential users, land use mix seems to be not a major concern (low coefficient) while thenegative sign indicates that higher commercial / public semi-public land use mix decreases the utility.
The positive sign of density indicates that high density has high utility for captive cyclists i.e. preferredenvironment. Also the informal sector presence and absence is significantly different for both groups.
Captive users seem to like the presence of informal sector as social security and service providers. On thecontrary, potential users find informal sector presence as major barrier to cycling. For both the captive
and potential user model, the SP experiment 2 has excellent goodness of fit.
B.7.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThis paper attempts to evaluate the perceptions of captive and potential users of bicycles regarding
different aspects of traffic characteristics (speed of motorized vehicles, presence of buses) and land use(intensity of mixed land use, density of development, presence of street vendors).
1.

Key issues like familiarity with new scenarios (situations) (e.g. bicycle tracks and bicycle
prioritized junction) and safety / security improvement (e.g. lighting, informal sector
integration) must be well designed to present to respondents.

2.

The parameters physical safety and junctions are assigned high weights respectively both bycaptive and potential users. Social security on the roads is considered an important issue by
captive cyclists and potential users alike.

3.

The perception of risk at type of junctions among captive cyclists and potential users does notshow much difference. Signalized/un-signalized crossings are ranked high on risk by bothgroups, closely followed by the roundabouts

4.

However, the presence of informal sector on the street side is social security element andcomfortable and attractive for providing services for captive cyclists. But for potential users
informal sector is like a barrier, although, lighting seems to be important for social security
concerns.

5.

As expected when the terrain is flat, and when the pavement quality is better, or when theParked vehicles are less; the utility is high in all these cases.

6.

The results indicate negative sign and low coefficient values for pedestrians as barriers. It isevident that captive cyclists are more tolerant to pedestrians owing to easier negotiation andtheir presence makes streets relatively crime free and safer.

7.

Potential users who have a choice of other motorized vehicle see slope as bigger threat tobicycle compatibility as compared to captive riders.

8.

Captive cyclists prefer wider roads (despite high speeds, high volumes of motorized vehicles)
against the narrower / lower hierarchy roads. Since captive cyclists have no other affordable
option available, they are used to higher risks in mix and fast traffic and prefer shorter directroutes for commute.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

228 – ANNEX B.

9.

Also for captive users, land use mix seems to affect route choice while the sign indicates thathigher activity mix decreases the utility. The negative sign of density (and low coefficient)indicates that low density are preferred environment; but does not play a very important role inroute choice.

10.

Interestingly, the presence of informal sector on the street side is seen as social security element
and is considered comfortable / attractive for providing services to captive cyclists.

Policy implications
This study can also help in indicating and prioritizing the road improvement projects and integrationof formal - informal land use aspects in transportation/city planning. This understanding shall provide
priorities and inputs for designing safe bicycle infrastructure for current users and attracting potential
users. The insights from this study can be useful in planning for bicycles and develop guidelines forbicycle compatible neighbourhood design strategies for safer and more comfortable commute of bicycle
trips.
The interaction effects of socio-economic and travel profile can be estimated to understand taste
heterogeneity among the various groups of users. Ultimately the use of bicycle has to be by choice. The
insights then can be useful in planning and designing strategies to attract the large potential of short trips
and convert them in regular bicycle trips. Up to 75% trips in small and medium Indian cities are shorttrips (less than 6 km, cycle-able); providing base of latent bicycle trips.
This can be further used for evaluating Area Bicycle Compatibility (ABC) or for estimating
relationship between land use aspects and bicycle use. This can also help generate bicycle compatibility
benchmarking among different roads / zones based upon people’s perception and the current roadinfrastructure conditions. The survey information can be used for traffic assignment and designing land
use for bicycles.
Further Work
This study presents results of a survey including 1400 respondents. The results for experimental
designs of street operations and street environment are indicative and statistically significant. But, further
work is required to increase the sample size for better estimation of differences in choice of the captive
and potential bicycle users. The more number of levels will improve the research from merely
exploratory and the linear relationships can be tested to more defined relationship. This can be further
utilized in developing mode choice model for bicycle trips. Also the cross-elasticity in parameters andother aspects like willingness to pay can be developed further for the system change in bicycle
compatibility; reflecting more accurate traveller’s decision and thus could yield more accurate demandprediction. The weights calculated from this research can be used for the calculation of bicycle
compatibility index / grades for the routes/ links for network analysis or route assignment. (36)
Acknowledgements
This survey study is supported by Volvo Research Education Foundations (VREF), Cycling
Academic Network (CAN) scholarship and by the Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport grant from
the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), Government of India to Indian Institute of Technology,
Delhi.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX B. – 229

References

Tiwari G, H Jain H, Bicycles in Urban India, Urban Transport Journal, Volume-7, No. 2, Institute ofUrban Transport, India, 2008, pp. 59-68.
Census, Population and household tables, Census of India, Registrar General of India, Government ofIndia, 2001
Singh R. B., Urbanization, Environmental Crisis, and Urban Planning in India, The Geographer, Vol.
XLIV, No. 2, 1997.
Tiwari G., Urban Transport Priorities – Meeting the Challenge of Socio-economic Diversity in Cities;
A Case Study of Delhi, India, Cities, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 95-103, 2002
NCRB, Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India, (Annual reports 2001-2006), National Crimes Record
Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2001-06
Replogle M, Non-Motorized Vehicles in Asian Cities, World Bank Technical Report 162, available fromthe Environmental Defense Fund, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA, 1991
Hsin-Li Chang, Shun-Cheng Wu, Exploring the vehicle dependence behind mode choice: Evidence of
motorcycle dependence in Taipei, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 42,
Issue 2, Pages 307-320, 2008
Gray, D., Farrington, J., Shaw, J., Martin, S., Roberts, D., 2001. Car dependence in rural Scotland:transport policy, devolution and the impact of the fuel duty escalator. Journal of Rural Studies 17,
113–125.
TRIPP, Survey report, Bicycle use and barriers to use- case of Delhi, Transportation Research and Injury
Prevention Program (TRIPP) IIT Delhi, Institute of Democratic Studies (IDS) for LOCOMOTIVES(I-ce), 2006
TRIPP, Survey report, Bicycle user and non user in NOIDA, Transportation Research and Injury
Prevention Program (TRIPP) IIT Delhi, India for NOIDA Transport Authority, 2008
Gatersleben, B. & Appleton, K. M., Contemplating cycling to work: Attitudes and perceptions indifferent stages of change. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 2007, pp. 302312
Mnller, S., Tscharaktschiew, S., & Haase, K., Travel-to-school mode choice modelling and patterns ofschool choice in urban areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 16, 2008, pp. 342-357
Tiwari G., H. Jain, Bicycle Compatibility in Indian cities, Context- built, living and natural - Journal of
the Development and Research Organization for Nature, Arts and Heritage (DRONAH), Volume
VI, Issue 1, Spring/Summer, 2009, pp. 85-92
Ortuzar, J. de D., Iacobelli, A., Valeze, C, Estimating demand for a bicycle-way network. Transportation
Research Part A 34, 2000, pp. 353-373
Pucher, J., Peng, Z., Mittal, N., Zhu, Y. and Korattyswaroopam, N, Urban Transport Trends and Policies
in China and India: Impact of Rapid Economic Growth, Transport Review, 2007CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

230 – ANNEX B.

Chawanen, T., Urban Form and Commuting Behaviour, A cross European Prespective, Journal of
Economic Social Geography, 93, pp. 336-343, 2002
Cherry, C., Cervero, R, Use characteristics and mode choice behavior of electric bike users in China.
Transport Policy, 14 (3), 2007, pp. 247-257
Litman T., “Land Use Impact Costs of Transportation,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 1, No.
4, 1995, pp. 9-16
Stinson, M.A., and Bhat, C.R., ‘Commuter Bicyclist Route Choice: Analysis Using a Stated Preference
Survey,’ Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1828, 2003, pp. 107-115
Moritz, W. Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and Aggregate Results. In
Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997
Beck, M. and L. Immers. Bicycle Ownership and Use in Amsterdam. In Transportation Research Record
1441, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Hope, D. Nonrecreational Cycling in Ottawa, Canada. In Transportation Research Record 1441, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Howard, C. and E. Burns. Cycling to Work in Phoenix: Route Choice, Travel Behavior, and Commuter
Characteristics. In Transportation Research Record 1773, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 2001.
Sorton, A. and T. Walsh. Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle
Compatibility. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1994.
Dixon, L. Bicycle And Pedestrian Level-Of-Service Performance Measures And Standards For
Congestion Management Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.
Epperson, B. Evaluation the Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Towards a Cycling Level ofService Standard. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1994.
Bovy, P., and M. Bradley. Route Choice Analyzed with Stated-Preference Approaches. In Transportation
Research Record 1037, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985.
Ashley, C. and C. Banister. Cycling to Work from Wards in a Metropolitan Area. 1. Factors Influencing
Cycling to Work. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1989.
Harkey, D., Reinfurt, D., Knuiman, M., Stewart, JR, and A. Sorton. Development Of The Bicycle
Compatibility Index: A Level Of Service Concept, Final Report. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-072,
Final Report, NCP4A4C, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1998.
Landis, B., Vattikuti, V., and M. Brannick. Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level ofService. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1997.
Aultman-Hall, L., Hall, F., and B. Baetz. Analysis Of Bicycle Commuter Routes Using Geographic
Information Systems: Implications For Bicycle Planning. In Transportation Research Record 1578,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.
Hyodo, T., Suzuki, N., and K. Takahashi. Modeling Of Bicycle Route And Destination Choice Behavior
For Bicycle Road Network Plan. In Transportation Research Record 1705, TRB, National ResearchCouncil, Washington, D.C., 2000.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX B. – 231

Abraham, J., McMillan, S., Brownlee, A., and J.D. Hunt. Investigation of Cycling Sensitivities.
Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., January 2002
Jain H., Tiwari G., Zuidgeest M., Evaluating bicyclists comfort and safety perception, World Conference
on Transportation Research (WCTR), 11th -15th July 2010, Lisbon, Portugal.
Louviere, J., Hensher, D., and J. Swait. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000
Jain H., Tiwari G., Chava J., Bicycle Network Assignment Model Based on the Land Use Aspects in
Indian Context, XVI Pan-American Conference of Traffic and Transportation Engineering And
Logistics (PANAM XVI), 15th -18th July 2010, Lisbon, Portugal.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX C. – 233

Annex C. A stated preference analysis on bicycle user’s perception on cycling
safety and its policy implications in Korean contexts

Sungwon Lee, (Corresponding author)
Director, Division of Transport and Climate Change Research
The Korea Transport Institute
Simindaero 1160, Ilsan-Seo Ku, Goyang, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea
Tel: +82-31-910-3132; Fax: +82-31-910-3280
E-mail: swlee@koti.re.kr
And
Gunyoung Kim
The Korea Transport Institute
Simindaero 1160, Ilsan-Seo Ku, Goyang, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea
Tel: +82-31-910-3244; Fax: +82-31-910-3280
E-mail: trecokim@koti.re.kr
Abstract
This paper reviews previous quantitative researches on cycling route choice and quantitatively
evaluates representative policy measures effectiveness by employing stated preference methodology.
The dedicated bicycle only road and bicycle lanes are estimated to enhance cyclists’ safety
perception. It is also estimated that lowering vehicle travel speed is very effective in increasing cyclists’safety perception. From the elasticity estimation it is shown that in Korean context lowering vehicle
travel speed is estimated to be most effective policy measure in increasing safety perception and thus forincreasing bicycle modal share. Providing dedicated infrastructures such as bicycle only roads and lanes
are also estimated to be highly effective.
C.1.

Introduction

The purposes of this paper are to quantitatively evaluate effectiveness of policy measures aimed atincreasing cycling modal share by increasing safety perception of cyclists in a Korean context and to
draw policy implications from the analysis. While bicycling has long been a significant mode oftransport in a relatively small number of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) member countries and many developing countries, bicycling is now rapidly gaining popularity
in many other countries as an alternative low carbon transport means for short distance urban trips.
However, a major impediment to large-scale bicycle use is the serious concern over bicycle safety in an
urban context. Improving cycling safety would contribute greatly to the popularization of bicycling as ameans of routine urban travel.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

234 – ANNEX C.

Most countries include increasing the share of urban trips made by bicycle in their national transport
plan objectives as part of their policies to develop more sustainable transport systems. If these policies
are to be successful, public perceptions of the safety of using bicycles in cities will need to improve.
More fundamentally, any risks in terms of increased deaths and serious injuries to cyclists and topedestrians as a consequence of increased bicycle use need to be identified, and where these are
significant, cost-effective countermeasures need to be developed.
This paper reviews previous quantitative researches on cycling route choice and quantitatively
evaluates representative policy measures effectiveness by employing stated preference methodology. As
people’s perception toward safety and transportation infrastructure development levels differ acrosscountries, country specific quantitative studies should be required in order to explore the possibility ofcountry specific policy recommendations for cycling safety improvement.
Figure C1 Trend of bicycle crashes in Korea

C.2.

Previous Quantitative Researches on Cycling Route Choice

There have been several international collaborations on bicycle safety and promotion of bicycle use
in general. The European Conference of Ministers of Transport’s (ECMT) work on national policies topromote cycling (2004) dealt with current international statistics related to bicycle use and national
promotion policies. Safety concerns were also dealt with but with limited scope. Another ECMT study,
Safety in Road Traffic for Vulnerable Users (2000), and the OECD report on safety of vulnerable road
users (1998), recognized the vulnerability of cyclists in the context of having direct interfaces withvehicle users in most country cases. These studies provide bicycle user characteristics and accident
pattern analysis in member countries and also provide policy recommendations in the areas of vehicle
construction, regulations related to visibility, vehicle speed, user behaviour and rider protection andinfrastructure provision and improvements.
Other international organizations such as the European Commission and European Transport Safety
Council (ETSC) have been involved with cycling safety-related projects. They have focused mainly on
maintaining international traffic safety data and professional and NGO networks. Their policy
recommendations also include speed regulations, safer vehicle designs, helmet requirements and roadsafety campaigns.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX C. – 235

For quantitative studies on cycling safety policies, there is substantial literature which tries toanalyse bicycle users’ route choice: Recent ones on developed country cases include M. Stinson et al(2005) and I. Sener et al (2005). Stinson et al (2005) divided cyclists into two groups, i.e., experienced
and inexperienced and analysed cyclist route choice behaviour and compared the results. They found thatthe most important route choice factor for experienced commuter cyclists is the travel time. And theyalso found that safety related bicycle facilities are also important. For inexperienced cyclists, they foundthat separation from vehicle traffic is the most important. Travel time is also found to be very importantfor inexperienced cyclists as well. The main policy implication from their study is that to retain cyclists,
design alignment to minimize travel time and direct connection between home and work are preferable.
And to minimize potential conflicts with motor vehicles is also very important to induce inexperienced
cyclists to more frequent use of bicycles.
Sener et al (2005) explored how bicycle riders’ route choice is affected by various attributes related
to bicycling. They examined quantitatively the impacts of attributes that influence bicycle route choice.
They found that travel time and motorized traffic volume are the most important attributes in bicycle
route choice implying reducing bicycle travel time and motorized traffic on the route could increase
bicycle use significantly for daily commuting. Other important attributes with a high impact include
number of stop signs or red lights, speed limit, and on street parking characteristics.
Jain et al (2010) is a most recent SP study on cycling safety conducted in a developing country.
They evaluated the subjective cyclists’ perception by SP methodology in India. As a developing country
case, they divided the cyclist into two groups, i.e., captive riders and potential riders. They found that the
subjective perceptions on cycling barriers are different among the two groups. Potential riders tend toregard hilly terrain as a significant barrier. While potential riders seem to be more concerned withpossible safety threat, captive cyclists prefer wide road with the possibility of faster travel. Their findings
are similar to Stinson et al’s in terms of policy implications.
C.3.
A Stated Preference (SP) Analysis on Bicycle User’s Perception on Cycling Safety and its
Policy Implications in Korean Contexts
Stated preference methodology can be regarded as a social experimentation as it is usually employed
to analyse quantitative impact of a policy measure which is currently not in place or even hypothetical.
The most common application of stated preference methodology has been therefore estimation ofdemand for new transport infrastructures such as high speed rail or light rail transit which could increase
traveller’s welfare by reducing travel time or increasing amenity level of trip.
SP methodology thus presupposes a hypothetical transport market and estimates traveller’s utility
function based on the respondents’ mode or route choice data. The quantitative impacts of each attribute
variables are thus inferred from the estimation of the parameters of the utility function. The SP analysis
usually follows the steps described below:
1) Identification of attributes of the utility function2) Specification of attribute measurement and variation levels
3) Experimental design of SP
4) Survey design5) Model estimation (Utility function)6) Quantitative impact analysis based on parameter estimatesCYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

236 – ANNEX C.

7) Policy implications
In the SP survey, individuals are usually required to answer a choice between two alternatives. In thetransportation mode choice, the usual supply-side variables are travel time, travel expense, service levelsof the transport mode or route. Demand side variables are generally composed of income, sex, andeducation. In cases where these variables are too numerous, and the levels of variables too widely varied
in order to be able to identify trade-off of modal choices, it is practically impossible to create a full
factorial design which includes all the possible sets of SP questionnaires. Therefore, a fractional factorialplan, which analyses only the main, most important effects and guarantees the orthogonality of variables,
is generally applied in the SP technique (Hensher, 1994).
In our cycling safety study, the main empirical questions that need to be addressed are as follows:1)

Is dedicated bicycle infrastructure going to be effective in increasing bicycle use by altering thesafety perception of potential cyclists?

2)

Reducing speed limit of vehicles would make the cyclists safer?

3)

How do cyclists evaluate the perceived barriers to cycling?

4)

Are there differences between experienced versus potential cyclists in their perceived safety
regarding cycling infrastructures and soft measures?

In estimating of mode or route choice behaviour, individuals are first asked to make a choice among
the alternatives that is most preferred. A sample binary choice experiment would look like the following:
Route 1-

Dedicated cycling
route
Four lane wide road
Vehicle speed limitof 50 km/h
20 minutes

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX C. – 237

Route 2-

Shared cycling lane
Four lane wide road
Vehicle speed limitof 30 km/h
15 minutes

Based on the SP design, the utility functions of the route or mode choice model are constructed asfollows;

U C 1   1  LNUM

  2  ONLY  3  LANE   4  SPEED  5 TIME

U C2   1  LNUM

  2  ONLY  3  LANE   4  SPEED  5 TIME

where LNUM= Number of lanes, a priori expectation is that LNUM could be regarded as an impedimentto cycling
ONLY= A dummy variable for dedicated cycling road, dedicated cycling road is preferred incountries with car oriented transport culture
LANE= A dummy variable for cycling lane, cycling lane provides separation from vehicles andthus could improve safety perception for bicyclists although the level of separation islower compared with ONLY
SPEED= Speed limit of a road, lower speed limit could increase safety perception by lowering
the probability of serious injuries or death when bicycle accident happens
TIME= Travel time required by route choice, TIME allows a trade-off between safety
perception related variables and time
The relative impact of policy variables can be quantified by estimating the policy related parametersin the model and comparing the relative magnitudes.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

238 – ANNEX C.

In order to test the difference in the explanatory power of variables, we can employ the Asymptotic
t-Test. For testing the null hypothesis that the estimates of the coefficients of the policy parameters are
the same, we need the test statistic of the following.

ˆi  ˆj

var ˆi  ˆjAnd we would be able to test the hypothesis of identical impacts by constructing and testing theabove test statistic.
Discrete choice model, which analyzes effectiveness of each explanatory variable and uses
socioeconomic characteristics and transportation decision-making data of individuals on mode or route
choice, is divided into RP (Revealed Preference) model and SP model depending on the data. While RP
model is the methodology of estimating demand behaviour based on the data of individuals who haveautomobiles currently, SP model is the estimation methodology based on survey data about individuals’
choice behaviour in imaginative plot. If RP data are available we could conduct RP study and verify theaccuracy and applicability of the SP study.
However in cases where reliable RP data are very difficult to obtain SP technique is more widelyused. The SP has improved despite of its methodological limitations, as it is perceived to be useful for
analyzing the effectiveness of newly developed policies.
For the SP analysis we surveyed bicycle users in Seoul metropolitan area. As we can see in Figure
2 below, bicycle use in Korea are mainly for leisure and social activities. Commute and work related are
not very prevalent considering the fact that the survey was focused only on current bicycle users.
Accordingly health benefits were reported as the primary reason for bicycle use in Korea.
Figure C.2 Main purposes of bicycle use in Korea

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX C. – 239

Figure C.3 Main reasons for bicycle use as a transport mode in Korea

Estimation results and policy implications
From the SP survey the coefficients of bicycle users’ utility function was estimated as shown in
Table 1. All of the coefficient estimates are turned out to be significant at 95% level. The most
unexpected finding is the positive significant estimate of LNUM coefficient which was conjectured to be
inversely correlated with bicycle travel conditions. This could be explained by the fact that in Korea,
unlike other countries wider roads could provide friendlier condition for bicycle. Narrower two laneroads are frequently blocked by illegal parking and etc.
The dedicated bicycle only road and bicycle lanes are estimated to enhance cyclists’ safety
perception. It is also estimated that lowering vehicle travel speed is very effective in increasing cyclists’safety perception as shown by negative significant coefficient for SPEED variable.
From the elasticity analysis it is shown that in Korean context lowering vehicle travel speed isestimated to be most effective policy measure in increasing safety perception and thus for increasing
bicycle modal share. Providing dedicated infrastructures such as bicycle only roads and lanes are also
estimated to be highly effective.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

240 – ANNEX C.

Table C.1 Estimation result for total bicycle travel

Variable

Coefficientestimate

Standard
Error

b/St.Er.

p[|Z|>z]

LNUM

0.05520.01793.087

0.0020ONLY

3.1844

0.096533.0050.0000LANE

2.20540.081427.1000.0000SPEED-0.0215

0.0023-9.5360.0000TIME-0.0657

0.0078-8.4720.0000

Table C.2 Elasticity of bicycle travel demand with respect to the attributes

Attribute

C1

C2

Mean

LNUM

0.12220.08510.1037ONLY

0.31520.3542

0.3347LANE

0.44590.1776

0.3118SPEED-0.7030-0.4189-0.5610TIME-0.5870-0.3663-0.4767

Subgroup analysis
In order to find whether the subgroups defined by travel purpose or cycling experience have similaror different characteristics we divided the respondents into several subgroups. The estimation results areshown in Table C.3 and C.4.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ANNEX C. – 241

Unlike the all bicycle user case, the LNUM variable is estimated to be insignificant. However othercoefficients show similar pattern to the all user case. In this subgroup, providing dedicated bicycle
facility is estimated to be the most effective policy measure.
Table C.3 Estimation result for bicycle work commuters

Variable

Coefficient

LNUM

0.0670ONLY

Standard

b/St.Er.

p[|Z|>z]0.03881.729

0.83702.05170.171111.9940.0000LANE

1.50170.145110.3510.0000SPEED-0.0130

0.0044-2.9720.0030TIME-0.0465

0.0158-2.9470.0032

Error

Table C.4 Elasticity of bicycle travel demand for work commute with respect to the attributes

Attribute

C1

C2

Mean

LNUM

0.14240.11120.1268ONLY

0.21510.29780.2565LANE

0.29550.13460.2151SPEED-0.4068-0.2721-0.3395

TIME-0.3976-0.2806-0.3391CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013242 – ANNEX C.

References

Hensher, David A. (1994) Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice,Transportation, 21(2), 107-133.
Jain, Himari, Geetam Tiwari and Mark Zuidgeest (2010), “Evaluating Bicyclists Comfort and Safety
Perception,” Transport Research Board.
Kocur, George, T. Adler, W. Hyman, B. Aunet (1982) Guide to Forecasting Travel Demand with Direct
Utility Assessment, U. S. Department of Transportation.
Lee, Sungwon and Jee Hyung Park (1998) Analysis on the Effects of Fare Policies of Regional
Transportation, Korea Transport Institute.
Lee, Sungwon, Yeong Heok Lee, and Jee Hyung Park (2000) "Estimating Price Elasticities of Demandfor Air Transportation with Stated Preference Technique," Journal of Korea Transportation
Research Society, 18(1), Korea Transportation Research Society.
Sener, Ipek N., Naveen Elulu and Chandra Bhat (2005), “An Analysis of Bicycle Route ChoicePreferences Using a Web-Based Survey to Examine Bicycle Facilities,” Transport Research Board.
Stinson, Monique A. and Chandra R. Bhat (2005), “A Comparison of Route Preferences of Experienced
and Inexperienced Bicycle commuters,” Transport Research Board.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ITF-OECD WORKING GROUP ON CYCLING SAFETY – 243

ITF-OECD Working Group on Cycling Safety
Chair
Mr. Niels TØRSLØV
Director
Technical and Environmental Administration Traffic Dept.
City of Copenhagen
Denmark
Members of the Working Group

Austria

Mr. Christian BRANDSTÄTTER
Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit (KfV)
Mr. Rainer KOLATOR
Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit (KfV)
Mr. Florian MATIASEK
IntegratedTransport Management
Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology

Australia

Dr. Jan GARRARD
Deakin University,
School of Health & Social Development
Dr. Julie HATFIELD
Transport and Road Safety Research Centre
University of New South Wales

Belgium

Mr. Benoît DUPRIEZ
Conseiller
Département Mobilité et Infrastructure
Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière (IBSR)
M. Arnaud HOUDMONT
Département Mobilité et Infrastructure
Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière (ASBL)
Mr. Olivier VAN DAMME
Belgian Road Research Centre (BRRC)

Czech Republic

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

Dr. Jiri BENDL
Senior Expert
Ministry of the Environment

244 – ITF-OECD WORKING GROUP ON CYCLING SAFETY

Denmark

Mr. Anders Møller GAARDBO
Road Safety Consultant
Danish Road Directorate

FranceMr. Thomas JOUANNOT
CERTU
Mrs. Arantxa JULIEN
Chargée de Mission
Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport andHousing (MEDDTL)
Mr. Hubert PEIGNÉConseil général de l'Environnement et du Développement Durable

Germany

Mr. Tobias TEICHNER
Federal Highway Research InstituteBundesanstalt für Strassenwesen (BASt)

India

Professor Geetam TIWARITRIPP Chair Assoc. Prof. for Transportation Planning
Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme(TRIPP)
Civil Engineering Department

Italy

Professor Maurizio TIRA
Full Professor
Civil architecture, land and environment
Universita degli Studi di BresciaJapan

Mr. Hajime HONDA
Senior Researcher,
Advanced Road Design & Safety Division, Road Dept.
National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
Mr. Tetsuya OWAKI
Senior Researcher, Traffic Engineering Division, Road Dept.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
Mr. Masatoshi UETA
Senior Deputy Director, Road Safety Management OfficeRoad Bureau, Environment & Safety Division
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

Korea

Dr. Byongho CHOE
Research Associate
Green Transport Safety Institute
Korea Transportation Safety Authority (KOTSA)CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ITF-OECD WORKING GROUP ON CYCLING SAFETY – 245

Dr. Hyunjin KIM
Centre for Road Safety Audits
Korean Transportation Safety Authority
Mr. Hee Cheol SHIN
Researcher
Korea Transport Institute
Netherlands

Mr. Atze DIJKSTRA
Senior Researcher
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research

PolandDr. Jacek MALASEKRoad and Bridge Research Institute

Spain

Ms. Anuncia OCAMPO
Head of Statistics Research Area
Dirección de Tráfico
Ministerio del Intérior

United Kingdom

Mr. Adam DAVIESPERS Programme Manager
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
Ms. Louise TAYLOR
Department for Transport (DfT)
Road Safety Research and Statistics Division

United States

Dr. Gabe Rousseau
USDOT/FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Programme Manager
Federal Highway Administration

International Transport
Forum Secretariat

Mr. Philippe CRIST
Administrator/Economist
International Transport Forum at the OECD
Joint Transport Research Centre
Mr. Sungwon LEE
Senior Reseach Fellow (KOTI)International Transport Forum at the OECD
Joint Transport Research Centre

Contributing authors of to the report included Jiri Bendl, Byongho Choe, Philippe Crist, Olivier Van
Damme, Atze Dijkstra, Anders Møller Gaardbo, Julie Hatfield, Arnaud Houdemont, Thomas Jouannot,
Sungwon Lee, Jacek Malasek, Anuncia Ocampo, Hee Cheol Shin, Tobias Techner, Geetam Tiwari andNiels Tørsløv.
The principal editors of the report were Philippe Crist, Sungwon Lee and Niels Tørsløv.

CYCLING, HEALTH AND SAFETY © OECD 2013

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social andenvironmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand andto help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, theinformation economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting
where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify goodpractice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes
part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering andresearch on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines andstandards agreed by its members.

OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16(75 2013 01 1 P) ISBN 978-92-821-0594-8 – No. 61145 2013

Cycling,
Health and Safety
Many jurisdictions around the world are trying to retain or increase
the share of cycling in urban traﬃc in order to beneﬁt from the many
health and transport eﬃciency beneﬁts. Safety is a key concern andshould be accounted for in these policies.

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
FranceT +33 (0)1 45 24 97 10
F +33 (0)1 45 24 13 22
Email : itf.contact@oecd.org
Web: www.internationaltransportforum.org

9HSTCSC*bafjei+(75 2013 01 1 P1)ISBN 978-92-821-0594-8

2013-11 /Photo credit: Dominik Thali, www.velofahrer.ch

This report of the International Transport Forum’s Cycling Safety
Working Group monitors international trends in cycling, safety andpolicy, and explores options that may help decision makers design
safe environments for cycling. Key messages relate to strategic
goal-setting for cycling policy and managing crash risks while
increasing health beneﬁts. The report also discusses how to better
capture crash and bicycle usage statistics. The safety impacts of awide range of pro-cycling measures are examined in detail.