The Highway Safety Information System 

(HSIS) is a multi-State safety database that 

contains crash, roadway inventory, and traffic

volume data for a select group of States. The 

current participating States—California, Illinois,

Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, 

and Washington—were selected based on 

the quality of their data, the range of data available,

and their ability to merge the data from the various

files. The HSIS is used by FHWA staff, contractors,

university researchers, and others to study current 

highway safety issues, direct research efforts, and 

evaluate the effectiveness of accident countermeasures.

Factors Contributing to Pedestrian and

Bicycle Crashes on Rural Highways

SUMMARY REPORT

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike . McLean, VA 22101-2296

Approximately 25 percent of nationwide pedestrian and bicycle fatal and injury 

accidents occur on rural highways. In contrast to urban highways, rural highways 

have certain characteristics that can be more hazardous to pedestrians and bicyclists, 

such as higher average vehicle speeds and a lack of sidewalk provisions. Limited 

research has been conducted on rural highways, where crash types have been 

defined with more detailed coding than exists on standard police forms and where 

crash data could be linked with roadway characteristics and traffic counts. 

The goals of this study were to examine the differences between pedestrian and 

bicycle crashes in urban and rural settings in North Carolina and to identify 

problem areas (specific crash types and crash locations) on rural highways that 

are of high priority for safety treatment and treatment development. 

Background

A 1996 study analyzed 5,000 pedestrian and 3,000 bicycle-vehicle crashes

from five States.(1) This study used a crash-typing method developed by 

the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to refine and 

update crash type distributions. The most common crash types were 

midblock dart/dash, other midblock, intersection-related, and vehicle 

turn/merge. The majority of bicycle-vehicle collisions occurred when the 

parties were crossing paths, and they were usually due to a failure to yield. 

The most common crossing-path crash types were drivers failing to 

yield, bicyclists failing to yield at an intersection, and bicyclists failing 

to yield midblock.

A recent review by Campbell, Zegeer, Huang, and Cynecki considered 

over 200 studies pertaining to pedestrian safety.(2) They found that 

while pedestrian crashes predominantly occur in urban areas, pedestrian crashes in rural areas more often lead to pedestrian deaths, 

possibly due to higher vehicle speeds. Pedestrian groups that were 

overrepresented were young pedestrians, pedestrians who had consumed alcohol, and older pedestrians. The most common crash types 

were dart-outs, intersection dashes, and turning-vehicle collisions.

Other studies of rural pedestrian crashes found that vehicle type, 

alcohol involvement, pedestrian age, weather, light conditions, 

nonintersection location, road curve and grade, and surrounding

development type were all prominent characteristics in crash 

injury and frequency.(3–5)

While the previously mentioned studies examined the general 

characteristics of rural crashes, there is a need to investigate 

more detailed crash types and characteristics of rural pedestrian and bicycle crashes to determine potential treatments. 

This study explored these issues and addressed the role of 

countermeasures in rural environments.
2

The first objective of the study was to compare general descriptive statistics of 

rural versus urban crashes. This general comparison is useful for indicating 

which factors are common to both localities as well as which factors are overrepresented in a rural environment. The rural to urban crash comparison can 

be found in table 1.

The most common crash types for bicyclists differed in rural and urban areas. 

The most common rural crashes included bicyclists turning/merging into the 

path of the driver and drivers overtaking the bicyclist. The most common 

urban crashes included drivers failing to yield, bicyclists failing to yield 

midblock, and bicyclists failing to yield at the intersection. One noticeable 

difference is that common rural crash types generally occurred at midblock 

segments, while urban crash types generally occurred at intersections. 

Both rural and urban areas had the same top four most common pedestrian 

crash types: (1) pedestrians walking along the roadway, (2) pedestrians 

failing to yield, (3) miscellaneous, and (4) pedestrians darting/dashing 

midblock. Similar to the comparison of bicycle crash types, the most 

common rural pedestrian crash type (pedestrians walking along the 

roadway) was more common at midblock segments, whereas the most 

common urban crash type (pedestrians failing to yield) was mostly 

found at intersections.

This study used data from pedestrian and bicyclist crashes in North Carolina and linked 

them with roadway data from the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS).(6) A 

subset of the North Carolina crash data were linked to urban and medium-to-high 

volume rural roadway data in HSIS to provide the dataset used in this study, which 

spans from 1997 to 2002. The data comprise 1,849 total bicycle-vehicle crashes 

(52 percent rural crashes and 48 percent urban crashes) and 3,598 pedestrian-vehicle 

crashes (54 percent rural crashes and 46 percent urban crashes). 

General Comparison of Rural and Urban Crashes

Table 1. General comparison of rural and urban crashes.

CRASH FACTORS CRASH TYPE

PERCENT OF CRASHES

RURAL URBAN

Resulted in fatality Pedestrian 18 10

Bicyclist 6 2

Pedestrian or bicyclist alcohol involvement Pedestrian 24 19

Bicyclist 8 6

Vehicle speed 41–60 mi/h Pedestrian 46 20

Bicyclist 47 9

Road speed limit 50 mi/h or higher Pedestrian 57 11

Bicyclist 54 3

Intersection-related Pedestrian 18 39

Bicyclist 23 48

Occurred on road with unpaved shoulders Pedestrian 71 18

Bicyclist 80 20

Occurred in daylight Pedestrian 41 54

Bicyclist 66 73

Data
3

Exploration of Factors in Rural Crashes

The second objective of this study was to identify specific crash types and crash locations on rural highways that are 

of high priority for safety treatment and treatment development. This section examines rural crashes according to 

road class and crash type to identify problem areas. It also examines prominent characteristics of those problem areas.

Analysis of Rural Crashes by Road Class

Given the availability of roadway inventory data in HSIS, it was possible to examine rural pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes with respect to characteristics of the roads where they occurred. The roadway-miles and vehicle-miles in 

table 2 and table 3 are a statewide reflection and do not simply represent roads where crashes occurred.

Roads in rural areas were divided into classes according to number of lanes, level of access control, and other 

characteristics. It should be noted that 94 percent of North Carolina State-owned roads are rural two-lane roads. 

For bicycle crashes, crash frequency and crashes per vehicle-mile indicate that rural two-lane roads had the highest

number of crashes, even after vehicle exposure was accounted for. The crashes per roadway-miles indicate that 

rural multilane undivided nonfreeways would be the most cost-effective roadway class to treat on a per-mile basis. 

For pedestrian crashes, crash frequency indicates that rural two-lane roads had the highest number of crashes. 

Crashes per roadway-mile indicate that rural multilane undivided nonfreeways would be the most cost-effective 

roadway class to treat on a per-mile basis. Crashes per vehicle-mile indicate that rural two-lane roads and rural 

multilane undivided nonfreeways had the highest number of crashes.

Overall, the rural two-lane roads class had the greatest need for safety improvements due to the large number and 

rate of crashes that occurred on these roads. While it is true that it would be costly to treat the extensive mileage 

of rural two-lane roads, funds for safety research and treatment development would be better spent if focused 

on this roadway class, and the treatments could be targeted to certain locations or segments within this class. 

The lack of pedestrian and bicyclist volume data prevents researchers from knowing whether the crashes are 

distributed evenly in accordance with where people walk and ride or if they are disproportionately represented on 

certain road classes. However, given the available data on crashes and vehicle volumes, the North Carolina data 

indicate that treatments for rural pedestrian and bicycle crashes should focus on two-lane roads.

Table 2. Rural bicycle crashes by road class.

RURAL ROADWAY CLASS

6-YEAR

CRASH FREQUENCY

CRASHES PER 

1,000 ROADWAY-MI

CRASHES PER 

100 MILLION VEHICLE-MI 

PER YEAR

Two-lane roads 725 23.9 0.51

Multilane divided 43 52.2 0.17

Multilane undivided 28 76.9 0.28

Freeways 3 3.3 0.01

Table 3. Rural pedestrian crashes by road class.

RURAL ROADWAY CLASS

6-YEAR

CRASH FREQUENCY

CRASHES PER 

1,000 ROADWAY-MI

CRASHES PER 

100 MILLION VEHICLE-MI 

PER YEAR

Two-lane roads 1,331 43.9 0.93

Multilane divided 110 133.5 0.45

Multilane undivided 71 195.1 0.72

Freeways 118 131.1 0.20
4

Analysis of Rural Crashes by Crash Type

One of the most prominent features of the North Carolina pedestrian and bicycle crash 

database is the crash type data. Based on police crash report sketches and narratives, 

each crash is categorized as a particular crash type, such as drivers overtaking a bicyclist or pedestrians walking along the roadway. This study explored crashes according to type and road class. Frequently occurring combinations of crash type and road 

class were identified as problem areas (e.g., pedestrians walking along the roadway 

on rural two-lane roads or drivers overtaking a bicyclist on rural two-lane roads). 

These problem areas were then explored to determine recurring crash characteristics. 

Pedestrian, bicyclist, driver, environmental, and roadway characteristics of the problem area were compared to the characteristics of all crash types on that road class 

(e.g., all crash types on rural two-lane roads). This comparison indicated which 

characteristics were overrepresented in that problem area. Any overrepresentation 

of a particular characteristic indicated potential treatment areas. For example, if 

characteristics of a problem area indicated that younger pedestrians were more 

involved than the general distribution, treatments specific to younger pedestrians 

would be more appropriate for improving the problem area. 

The characteristics of each problem area were compared to the characteristics 

of all crash types on that road class to determine how they differed. This study 

examined each of the 11 pedestrian problem areas and 5 bicycle problem

areas. An example problem area (walking along roadway crashes on rural twolane roads) has been included to show the results of the examination of the 

characteristics of the pedestrian, driver, environment, and location. 

Discussion of Countermeasures for Rural Problem Areas

After the problem areas were identified, potential countermeasures were 

discussed to reduce those types of crashes. The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) has sponsored two projects, PEDSAFE and 

Example Examination of Problem Area Characteristics

• Crash Type: Pedestrians

walking along the 

roadway.

• Road Class: Rural

 two-lane roads.

• Number of Crashes: 

369 (27 percent of all 

rural two-lane road 

crashes).

• Crash Type Definition:

The pedestrian was 

walking or running 

along the roadway and 

was struck from the 

front or from 

behind by a vehicle.

Comparison of pedestrian walking along the roadway to all 

pedestrian crash types.

CRASH CHARACTERISTICS

CRASH TYPE (PERCENT)

PEDESTRIANS 

WALKING ALONG 

THE ROADWAY ON

RURAL TWO-LANE 

ROADS

ALL PEDESTRIAN 

CRASH TYPES 

ON RURAL 

TWO-LANE 

ROADS

Pedestrians 25–44 years old 45 34 

Pedestrian alcohol involvement 35 24 

Estimated vehicle speeds of 

45–55 mi/h 39 31 

Dark unlighted roadways 76 50 

Road Speed limits of 50 mi/h or 

higher 68 60 

Undeveloped area 64 54 

Unpaved shoulders 92 86 
5

BIKESAFE, to provide comprehensive information on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, 

specifically focusing on crash types and countermeasures.(7,8) This current study 

examined crash types from pedestrian and bicyclist problem areas, considered the countermeasures that PEDSAFE or BIKESAFE suggests for that crash type, and discussed 

the suitability of the countermeasure with respect to the rural setting. Through careful 

consideration and discussion with a limited group of pedestrian and bicycle experts 

who were involved in the development of PEDSAFE and BIKESAFE, the suitability

of the countermeasure for rural settings was given a consensus-based rating for 

two measures—the potential safety effectiveness of the countermeasure and the 

feasibility of its implementation in rural areas. 

Summary of Countermeasure Discussion

The countermeasures that rated high for potential safety effectiveness and 

feasibility in rural areas for each crash type are listed below. Pedestrian and 

bicycle activity can be relatively low on some rural roads. Thus, certain countermeasures (indicated in the following list with the word “targeted”) may 

only be suitable for rural areas where there are higher levels of pedestrian and 

bicycle activity. Note that a full discussion of possible treatments, including those 

not considered feasible, is in the final report (Transportation Research Board 

Annual Meeting 2007 Paper #07-2457).

Rural pedestrian crash types and their solutions include the following:

• Pedestrians walking along the roadway.

Add sidewalks (targeted).

Add paved shoulders.

Add roadway lighting (targeted).

• Pedestrians failing to yield midblock.

Educate pedestrians.

• Pedestrians darting/dashing midblock.

Improve signing (targeted).

Educate pedestrians.

Utilize traffic-calming measures (targeted).

• Disabled vehicle-related.

Educate drivers.

• Pedestrians failing to yield at the intersection.

Educate pedestrians.

Install pedestrian signal (targeted).

Improve roadway lighting (targeted).

• Pedestrians crossing the expressway.

Improve roadway lighting (targeted).

Install fence or barrier (targeted).

Rural bicycle crash types and their solutions include the following:

• Bicyclists turning/merging into the path of the driver 

midblock.
Visit us on the Web 

at www.tfhrc.gov

REFERENCES

1. Hunter, W., Stutts, J., Pein, W., and 

Cox, C. (1996). Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 

1990s, Report No. FHWA-RD 95-

163, University of North Carolina 

Highway Safety Research Center, 

Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

2. Campbell, B.J., Zegeer, C., Huang, H.,

and Cynecki, M. (2004). A Review 

of Pedestrian Safety Research in the 

United States and Abroad, Report No. 

FHWA-RD-03-042, University of North 

Carolina Highway Safety Research 

Center, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

3. Ivan, J.N., Gårder, P.E., and Zajac, S.S. 

(2001). Finding Strategies to Improve 

Pedestrian Safety in Rural Areas, Storrs CT: 

University of Connecticut, Connecticut 

Transportation Institute. Obtained from: 

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/11000/11500/11542/

UCNR.pdf. Site last accessed June 4, 2010.

4. Hall, J.W., Brogan, J.D., and Kondreddi, M. 

(2004). Pedestrian Safety on Rural Highways, Report No. FHWA-SA-04-008, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

Obtained from: http://www.walkinginfo.org/

pdf/FHWA/Rural_Pedestrian_Safety.pdf. Site 

last accessed January 7, 2005.

5. Ossenbruggen P.J., Pendharkar, J., and Ivan, J. 

(2001). “Roadway Safety in Rural and Small 

Urbanized Areas,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33(4), 485–498. 

6. Federal Highway Administration. (2003). Highway 

Safety Information System (HSIS), An Analysis Tool 

for Making Informed Safety Decisions, Department 

of Transportation, Washington, DC.

7. Harkey, D.L. and Zegeer, C.V. (2004). PEDSAFE: 

Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection 

System, Report No. FHWA-SA-04-003, Office of Safety, 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

Obtained from: http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe. 

Site last accessed June 4, 2010.

8. Hunter, W.H., Thomas, L., and Stutts, J.C. (2005).

BIKESAFE: Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System, 

Report No. FHWA-SA-05-006, Office of Safety, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Obtained 

from: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe. Site last 

accessed June 4, 2010.

FHWA-HRT-10-052

HRDS-06/06-10(1M)E

6

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by the FHWA under HSIS project 

TFH61-00-C-00034. The authors appreciate the support of HSIS 

Manager Carol Tan, Office of Safety Research and Development 

and the Office of Safety, in defining the scope of the study and 

for reviewing preliminary versions. They also express their 

appreciation to Charlie Zegeer and Bill Hunter of the University

of North Carolina Highway Research Safety Center for their 

input on pedestrian and bicycle countermeasures. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Additional information can be found in the full report that 

was presented on this study. It can be obtained as follows:

Carter, D. and Council, F. (2007). Factors Contributing to 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Rural Highways, Transportation 

Research Board 86th Annual Meeting Paper #07-2457, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Obtained from: 

http://gulliver.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=7286.

The full report can also be found at www.hsisinfo.org.

For more information about HSIS, contact Carol Tan, HSIS 

program manager, HRDS, (202) 493-3315, carol.tan@dot.gov.

The goal of this study was to gain additional knowledge on rural pedestrian 

and bicycle crashes. A general comparison of rural and urban crashes in 

North Carolina found that rural crashes were typified by higher fatality rates, 

higher vehicle speeds, less roadway lighting, unpaved shoulders, and more 

nonintersection locations than urban crashes. 

An examination of rural crashes by road class showed that rural two-lane 

roads had the greatest needs for safety improvements due to their high raw 

crash frequencies and crash rates per vehicle-mile.

Specific problem areas were identified and described in terms of characteristics of the crash participants and crash location. The study identified 

11 pedestrian problem areas, such as walking along roadway crashes on 

rural two-lane roads, and 5 bicycle problem areas, such as bicyclists turning/

merging into the path of drivers midblock on rural two-lane roads. 

Potential countermeasures for these problem areas were discussed to 

determine their potential safety effectiveness and feasibility for rural 

areas. Potential pedestrian crash countermeasures for rural areas 

included improving roadway lighting, educating pedestrians and 

drivers, and adding sidewalks and paved shoulders. Potential bicycle 

crash countermeasures for rural areas included providing marked 

pavement space for bicyclists, adding paved shoulders, and improving 

roadway lighting.

Conclusions

Provide marked pavement space for bicyclists (locations with suitable pavement 

width).

Add paved shoulder.

• Drivers overtaking midblock.

Provide marked pavement space for bicyclists (locations with suitable pavement width).

Improve roadway lighting (targeted).

• Bicyclists failing to yield midblock.

Reduce lane width to minimize crossing distance and slow vehicles 

(targeted).

• Bicyclists failing to yield at the intersection.

Improve sight distance.

Improve school zones.