February 2010

In cooperation with:

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway

Research Program

Sponsored by:

International Technology Scanning Program

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 

and Mobility in Europe
NOTICE

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public 

in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-10-010

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility

in Europe

5. Report Date

February 2010

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Edward L. Fischer, Gabe K. Rousseau, Shawn M. 

Turner, Ernest (Ernie) J. Blais, Cindy L. Engelhart, 

David R. Henderson, Jonathan (Jon) A. Kaplan, 

Vivian M. (Kit) Keller, James D. Mackay, Priscilla 

A. Tobias, Diane E. Wigle, Charlie V. Zegeer

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-99-C-005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway 

 and Transportation Officials

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths accounted for 14 percent of U.S. highway fatalities in 2008. The Federal 

Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program sponsored a scanning study of five European countries to identify 

and assess effective approaches to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility. 

The scan team gathered information on strategies and approaches in the areas of engineering, education, 

enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation. The team learned that many of the countries studied have 

established an urban street user hierarchy that gives the highest priority to walking, biking, and public transit. 

Team recommendations for U.S. implementation include encouraging transportation policy that gives 

walking, biking, and other nonmotorized modes the highest priority in the road user hierarchy. The team 

also recommends evaluating innovative strategies and designs to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

for possible U.S. use, institutionalizing traffic safety education that starts at an early age, and developing 

programs that encourage regular walking and biking.

17. Key Words

Bicyclist safety, bike lanes, low-speed street design, 

pavement markings, pedestrian safety, Safe Routes 

to School, shared-use paths, traffic safety campaigns, 

traffic safety education

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public from the: Office of International Programs, 

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classify. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classify. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

76

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Technical Report Documentation Page

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

and Mobility in Europe

Edward L. Fischer (Cochair)

Oregon DOT

Gabe K. Rousseau (Cochair)

FHWA

Shawn M. Turner 

(Report Facilitator)

Texas Transportation Institute

Ernest (Ernie) J. Blais

FHWA

Cindy L. Engelhart

Virginia DOT

David R. Henderson

Miami-Dade County Metropolitan 

Planning Organization

Jonathan (Jon) A. Kaplan 

Vermont Agency of Transportation

Vivian M. (Kit) Keller

Association of Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Professionals

James D. Mackay

National Committee on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices

Priscilla A. Tobias

Illinois DOT

Diane E. Wigle

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Charlie V. Zegeer

University of North Carolina Highway 

Safety Research Center

for

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation 

Officials

National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program

February 2010

Prepared by the International Scanning Study Team:
iv |

T

he International Technology Scanning Program, 

sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 

and the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP), evaluates innovative foreign technologies 

and practices that could significantly benefit U.S. highway 

transportation systems. This approach allows advanced 

technology to be adapted and put into practice much 

more efficiently without spending scarce research funds to 

re-create advances already developed by other countries.

FHWA and AASHTO, with recommendations from NCHRP, 

jointly determine priority topics for teams of U.S. experts 

to study. Teams in the specific areas being investigated are 

formed and sent to countries where significant advances 

and innovations have been made in technology, management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, 

and financing. Scan teams usually include representatives 

from FHWA, State departments of transportation, local 

governments, transportation trade and research groups, 

the private sector, and academia. 

After a scan is completed, team members evaluate findings 

and develop comprehensive reports, including recommendations for further research and pilot projects to verify the value 

of adapting innovations for U.S. use. Scan reports, as well as 

the results of pilot programs and research, are circulated 

throughout the country to State and local transportation 

officials and the private sector. Since 1990, more than 80 

international scans have been organized on topics such as 

pavements, bridge construction and maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management, winter 

road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, 

planning, and policy. 

The International Technology Scanning Program has 

resulted in significant improvements and savings in road 

program technologies and practices throughout the United 

States. In some cases, scan studies have facilitated joint 

research and technology-sharing projects with international 

counterparts, further conserving resources and advancing 

the state of the art. Scan studies have also exposed transportation professionals to remarkable advancements and 

inspired implementation of hundreds of innovations. The 

result: large savings of research dollars and time, as well 

as significant improvements in the Nation’s transportation 

system.

Scan reports can be obtained through FHWA free of 

charge by e-mailing international@dot.gov. Scan reports 

are also available electronically and can be accessed on 

the FHWA Office of International Programs Web site at 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov. 

International Technology

Scanning Program
 Safety 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe (2010)

Improving Safety and Mobility for Older Road Users in 

 Australia and Japan (2008)

Halving Roadway Fatalities: A Case Study From Victoria, 

 Australia (2008)

Safety Applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems in 

 Europe and Japan (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, 

 Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in Europe 

(2005) 

Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and Australia 

(2004) 

Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003) 

Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway Safety

 in Europe (2003) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Commercial Vehicle Safety, Technology, and Practice in 

 Europe (2000) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in 

 European Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe 

 (1999) 

Road Safety Audits—Final Report and Case Studies (1997)

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: 

 Europe and Australia (1996) 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and 

 New Zealand (1995) 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, 

 and the Netherlands (1994)

 Planning and Environment 

Streamlining and Integrating Right-of-Way and Utility 

 Processes With Planning, Environmental, and Design 

 Processes in Australia and Canada (2009)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

 Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives 

 to U.S. Practice (2006)

Risk Assessment and Allocation for Highway Construction 

 Management (2006)

Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, 

 England, and New Zealand (2005)

Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, 

 Japan, and New Zealand (2004) 

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices (2002) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2002) 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways 

 (2002) 

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe (2001) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments 

 (1999) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and 

 Technology (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

 Policy and Information 

Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe 

 and Asia (2009)

European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development

 (2003) 

Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter Operations in 

 Japan (2003)

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs 

 and Services (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information From Abroad 

 (1994) 

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information 

 (1994) 

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality 

 Enhancement (1994) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and 

 Technology (1994) 

International Technology

Scan Reports

International Technology Scanning Program:

Bringing Global Innovations to U.S. Highways

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | v
 Operations 

Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity in China (2008)

Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Enforcement 

 in Europe (2007)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

 Management (2007)

Effective Use of Weigh-in-Motion Data: The Netherlands 

 Case Study (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives 

 to U.S. Practice (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: 

 Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and 

 Specifications in Europe (2004) 

Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (2003) 

Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System Performance 

 Through Better Operations (2003) 

Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003) 

Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in 

 European Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe 

 (1999) 

European Winter Service Technology (1998) 

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems 

 (1997) 

European Traffic Monitoring (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices—

 Learning from Abroad (1995) 

Advanced Transportation Technology (1994) 

Snowbreak Forest Book—Highway Snowstorm 

 Countermeasure Manual (1990) 

 Infrastructure—General 

Public-Private Partnerships for Highway Infrastructure: 

 Capitalizing on International Experience (2009)

Audit Stewardship and Oversight of Large and Innovatively 

 Funded Projects in Europe (2006)

Construction Management Practices in Canada and Europe 

 (2005) 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce 

 Development (2003) 

Contract Administration: Technology and Practice in Europe 

 (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2001) 

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe 

 (1999) 

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing (1993)

 Infrastructure—Pavements

Warm-Mix Asphalt: European Practice (2008)

Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and Canada (2007)

Quiet Pavement Systems in Europe (2005)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and 

 Specifications in Europe (2004)

Asphalt Pavement Warranties: Technology and Practice in 

 Europe (2004)

Pavement Preservation Technology in France, South Africa, 

 and Australia (2003) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments 

 (1999) 

South African Pavement and Other Highway Technologies 

 and Practices (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

European Concrete Highways (1992)

European Asphalt Technology (1990) 

 Infrastructure—Bridges 

Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe (2008)

Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in Japan and 

 Europe (2005) 

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe (2005)

Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe and South 

 Africa (2005) 

Innovative Technology for Accelerated Construction of Bridge

 and Embankment Foundations in Europe (2003)

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed 

 Bridges in Europe (2001) 

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan 

 (2001) 

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability 

 Countermeasures (1999) 

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan 

 (1997) 

Asian Bridge Structures (1997) 

Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997) 

Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996) 

European Bridge Structures (1995)

All publications are available on the 

Internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.

vi | International Technology Scan Reports
Executive Summary ........................... 1

Introduction.................................. 1

Summary of Findings and Conclusions............. 1

Implementation Plan........................... 4

Next Steps................................... 6

Chapter 1| Introduction ...................... 7

Background.................................. 7

Purpose and Objectives ........................ 7

Host Country Information ....................... 8

Scan Team Members .......................... 8

Report Organization ........................... 9

Chapter 2 | Comprehensive Approach to Pedestrian 

and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility .............. 11

Policies and Factors Influencing Pedestrian and Bicyclist 

Safety and Mobility ........................... 11

Historical Perspective and Changes in Policies and 

Culture .................................... 13

Safety in Numbers ........................... 13

Key Findings ................................ 16

Chapter 3 | Engineering and Design Elements... 19

Implementing Foreign Design Practices in the 

United States................................ 19

False Sense of Security and Safety ............... 19

Engineering and Design Elements for Pedestrians ... 19

Engineering and Design Elements for Bicyclists ..... 22

Low-Speed Street Design ...................... 27

Integration of Biking and Walking With Public Transit . . 29

Chapter 4 | Education Elements ............... 31

Traffic Safety Education for Children .............. 31

Traffic Safety Education for Adults ................ 32

Motorist Education and Awareness Programs....... 33

Key Findings ................................ 33

Chapter 5 | Enforcement Elements ............ 35

Key Findings ................................ 36

Chapter 6 | Encouragement ................... 37

Route and Wayfinding Signs .................... 37

Route and Destination Planning ................. 37

Marketing Campaigns ......................... 37

Shared and Rental Bike Programs ............... 39

Free Public-Use Bikes (City Bikes) ............... 40

Free Hotel Guest Use Bikes .................... 40

Utility Bicycle Designs ......................... 40

Bicycle Service Facilities........................ 40

Bicycle Parking............................... 40

Bike Barometers ............................. 41

Public Spaces and Pedestrian Service Facilities...... 41

Key Findings ................................ 41

Chapter 7 | Evaluation ........................ 43

Berlin, Germany ............................. 43

Copenhagen, Denmark........................ 43

London, United Kingdom ...................... 44

Lund, Sweden............................... 45

Potsdam, Germany ........................... 47

Safety Evaluation Research ..................... 47

Key Findings ................................ 48

Chapter 8 | Summary of Findings and 

Implementation Plan.......................... 49

Summary of Findings ......................... 49

Implementation Plan.......................... 50

Appendix A | Amplifying Questions............ 53

Appendix B | Scanning Study Itinerary and 

Meeting Schedule............................. 57

Appendix C | Host Country Contacts........... 59

Appendix D | Scan Team Members ............ 61

Appendix E | Internet Resources for 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety ................. 65

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | vii

Contents
viii | Contents

Figures

Figure 1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility scan 

team. .......................................... 8

Figure 2. Several land use and transport policies influence 

walking and biking in Copenhagen, Denmark. ......... 12

Figure 3. Deputy mayor of Copenhagen encourages 

commuter bicyclists with breakfast bagels. ............ 13

Figure 4. Historical bicycle mode share in several 

European cities. ................................. 14 

Figure 5. Before-and-after photos of Strøget in 

Copenhagen. .................................. 14

Figure 6. Historical development of a pedestrian priority 

zone in Winterthur, Switzerland. .................... 15

Figure 7. Before-and-after photos of pedestrian priority 

zones in Winterthur, Switzerland..................... 16

Figure 8. Before-and-after photos of public plaza in front 

of the Bundeshaus in Bern, Switzerland............... 16

Figure 9. Motorist waits for through bicyclists before turning 

right across cycle track in Copenhagen, Denmark. ...... 17

Figure 10. Near-side pedestrian signal with confirmation 

light in Bristol, United Kingdom. .................... 20

Figure 11. Automated pedestrian sensors for adapting signal 

timing for pedestrians in Bristol, United Kingdom. ...... 20

Figure 12. Offset pedestrian crossing at a signalized 

intersection in Bristol, United Kingdom................ 21

Figure 13. Near-side traffic signals in Bern, Switzerland. . 21

Figure 14. Raised crosswalk at two-lane roundabout exit 

in Malmö, Sweden. .............................. 22

Figure 15. Median island with unmarked crosswalk in 

London, United Kingdom. ......................... 22

Figure 16. Railing is used to direct pedestrians to preferred 

crossing locations in London, United Kingdom. ........ 22

Figure 17. Smooth, accessible path on cobblestone 

sidewalk in Copenhagen, Denmark. ................. 23

Figure 18. Tactile sidewalk strips leading to front door of 

public building in Copenhagen, Denmark. ............ 23

Figure 19. Intersection accessibility features for pedestrians 

with visual impairments. .......................... 23

Figure 20. Cycle track in Copenhagen, Denmark. ...... 24

Figure 21. Two-way cycle path in Winterthur, 

Switzerland. .................................... 24

Figure 22. One-way cycle path in Berlin, Germany...... 24

Figure 23. Cycle path on an independent alignment in 

Malmö, Sweden. ................................ 25

Figure 24. Advance stop lines for onstreet through and 

left-turn bike lanes in Bern, Switzerland. .............. 25

Figure 25. Convex mirrors improve bicyclist visibility for 

drivers of large or high-profile vehicles in Bern, 

Switzerland. .................................... 25

Figure 26. Bike boxes provide better visibility for turning 

bicyclists in London, United Kingdom................. 26

Figure 27. Bicycle traffic signals control bicycle traffic 

movements at signalized intersections in Potsdam, 

Germany....................................... 26

Figure 28. Colored bike lane at potential conflict area in 

Winterthur, Switzerland. ........................... 26

Figure 29. Dashed bike lane provides guidance through a 

wide intersection in Osnabrück, Germany. ............ 27

Figure 30. Bike symbols oriented to motorists turning at 

a driveway in Berlin, Germany. ..................... 27

Figure 31. Dashed bike lane in Potsdam, Germany. .... 27

Figure 32. “Green wave” cycle track in Copenhagen, 

Denmark, on which traffic signals are synchronized to 

bicyclist speeds. ................................. 28

Figure 33. Residential street in Bern, Switzerland, with 

pedestrian priority posted with 20 km/h speed limit. .... 28

Figure 34. Pedestrian priority zone in commercial area of 

Winterthur, Switzerland. ........................... 28

Figure 35. Retractable bollards provide access to pedestrian 

streets for authorized users in Bern, Switzerland. ....... 28

Figure 36. A variety of bike parking is provided at transit 

stations. ....................................... 29

Figure 37. Bike-friendly steps in a multilevel transit station 

in Lund, Sweden................................. 29

Figure 38. Children’s Traffic Club Web site in the United 

Kingdom. ...................................... 31

Figure 39. Aerial view of reduced-scale closed course for 

traffic safety education for children in Winterthur, 

Switzerland. .................................... 32

Figure 40. Closed-course traffic safety education for children 

in Winterthur, Switzerland. ......................... 32

Figure 41. Transport for London’s pedestrian road safety 

campaign for teenagers. .......................... 33

Figure 42. Photo enforcement at a traffic signal in Bern, 

Switzerland. .................................... 35

Figure 43. Route signs in Switzerland (left) and Germany 

(right). ........................................ 37

Figure 44. National route and destination planning tool 

showing cycling routes in Switzerland................. 37

Figure 45. Incentives to reduce short car trips in Malmö, 

Sweden........................................ 38
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe |ix

Figure 46. Updated promotional banners to reduce 

“ridiculously short” car trips in Malmö, Sweden. ........ 38

Figure 47. Marketing material for cycling in Copenhagen, 

Denmark. ...................................... 39

Figure 48. City fleet bicycles in Malmö, Sweden. ...... 39

Figure 49. Rental bike in Berlin, Germany............. 40

Figure 50. Free public-use “city bikes” in Copenhagen, 

Denmark. ...................................... 40

Figure 51. Multifunctional bicycles were seen in all shapes 

and sizes. ...................................... 41

Figure 52. Bicycle tire air pump (top, “luft” is Swedish 

for “air”) and tools (bottom) provided at popular bicyclist 

locations in Malmö, Sweden........................ 42

Figure 53. Bike counter (daily and year-to-date subtotals) 

and air pump in Copenhagen, Denmark. ............. 42

Figure 54. Bicycling trends in Berlin, 1951–2008....... 43

Figure 55. Key statistics from Copenhagen’s 2006 

Bicycle Account.................................. 44

Figure 56. Manual (top) and automatic (bottom) bicyclist 

counts in London. ............................... 45

Figure 57. Short- and long-range walking and cycling 

targets in Lund, Sweden. .......................... 45

Figure 58. Bicycle, car, and public transport usage trends 

in Lund, Sweden................................. 46

Figure 59. Bicyclist-involved crash index trends in Lund, 

Sweden........................................ 46

Figure 60. Modal share trends in Potsdam, Germany, 

1977–2003. ................................... 47

Figure 61. Six-hour bicyclist counts on a major bridge in 

Potsdam, Germany, 1994–2006. ................... 47

Figure 62. Swedish research on relative risk at marked, 

signalized, and unmarked pedestrian crossings. ........ 48

Table

Table 1. Hosted locations for the pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety and mobility scanning study. ................... 7 
x | 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 1

Introduction

I

n May 2009, a team of 12 transportation professionals 

from the United States with expertise in bicycling and 

walking visited five countries in Europe to identify 

and assess effective approaches to improve pedestrian 

and bicyclist safety and mobility. The countries visited—

Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United 

Kingdom—were chosen because of their innovative 

approaches to nonmotorized transportation, as well as 

the potential transferability of their policies and practices. 

Some, like Denmark, experienced an increase in car use 

in the 1960s and 1970s and subsequently reoriented their 

transportation policy to give priority to bicycling and walking. 

The scan team heard presentations from and had informal 

discussions with the foreign hosts. During most visits, the 

scan team also went on guided field visits (by bike as well 

as by foot) to better understand and experience the design 

and operation of various walking and bicycling facilities. 

These field visits were invaluable in documenting the 

facilities through photos and video, observing traffic 

behavior, and experiencing firsthand how well a design 

or operational strategy worked.

The purpose of this scanning study was to identify and assess 

effective approaches to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

and mobility. The specific topics of interest were the following:

◗ Improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety —Approaches 

(engineering, education, enforcement, and policy) that 

have been successful in improving pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety

◗ Safe Routes to School programs —Approaches and 

policies for improving safety for child pedestrians and 

bicyclists, especially those that support programs like 

Safe Routes to School

◗ Monitoring usage levels and exposure —Quantitative 

methods of monitoring pedestrian and bicyclist usage 

levels (for example, counts and surveys) and exposure 

to crashes

◗ Safety research and evaluation —Recently completed 

or ongoing research and collaboration opportunities in 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety

The scan team identified numerous possible approaches 

to improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility 

in the United States. The scan team also prepared a 

list of implementation items for those approaches that 

should be pursued in the United States. This executive 

summary provides an overview of the team’s findings 

and recommendations.

Summary of Findings and Conclusions

The scan team gathered a considerable amount of 

information on various strategies and approaches that 

could be used to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

and mobility in the United States. This section highlights 

the most important findings from the scanning study. The 

“General Findings and Conclusions” section describes the 

broader issues and themes that emerged on the scan and 

provides a context for understanding the details provided in 

the body of the report. The “Key Findings” section provides 

details on specific topics and is organized around the 5E 

approach (an expanded version of the 3E approach 

commonly used in traffic safety improvements):

◗ Engineering —Designing and building infrastructure that 

is safe, convenient, and comfortable to use

◗ Education —Educating all transportation system users on 

safe and appropriate behavior 

◗ Enforcement —Enforcing existing traffic laws

◗ Encouragement —Encouraging and promoting the use 

of sustainable travel modes

◗ Evaluation —Monitoring the results to ensure that goals 

are met 

General Findings and Conclusions

◗ Implementing foreign practices in the United States 

will require a careful, evidence-based approach. 

Some policies, practices, and designs are easily 

transferrable and can be immediately implemented. 

However, implementing some foreign policies and 

design practices in the United States may require a 

safety evaluation and/or implementation criteria. For 

example, separated bicycle facilities should be evaluated 

in the context of typical motorist and bicyclist behavior 

Executive Summary
2 | Executive Summary

and safety experience in the United States before being 

widely implemented. Separated onroad bicycle facilities 

may be quite effective in Denmark, for example, but 

their effectiveness may be at least partly a product of 

Danish culture and behavior or a result of their widespread implementation.

However, foreign practices (like separated bicycle 

facilities) should not be dismissed outright simply 

because current American culture and behavior may 

be different. Culture and behavior can be changed, 

but these changes often occur over longer time periods 

than covered in a typical safety evaluation. For example, 

separated bicycle facilities could be evaluated at a few 

trial locations in the United States and show no clear 

safety benefits in a typical 1- to 2-year safety evaluation. 

But in 5 to 10 years, as more bicyclists use separated 

facilities and motorist and bicyclist behavior adapts, 

safety could improve dramatically. Unfortunately, this 

increase in safety would not be captured in typical 

safety evaluations because they do not capture longterm behavior changes. Many of the host countries have 

undergone a culture change over the past 40 years that 

has returned to an increased emphasis on walking and 

bicycling safety and mobility. Changes of this sort can 

happen if fostered by a careful, evidence-based 

approach.

◗ Numerous factors contribute to higher rates of 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements and 

higher walking and biking mode splits in the host 

countries. From all of the information the scan team 

gathered and everything it observed, it appears that 

higher levels of walking and biking safety and mobility 

are due to a deliberate combination of policies, 

approaches, and influences that include the following: 

z Integration of transportation and land use policy

z Transportation planning and design policies that are 

mode neutral or that give priority to vulnerable road 

users (like pedestrians and bicyclists)

z Political support at all levels, including elected officials, 

government staff, and the general public

z Provision and pricing of motor vehicle parking

z The high costs of owning and operating a private 

motor vehicle (sales tax, annual registration fees, gas, 

parking, fines for moving violations, etc.)

z A comprehensive, continuous, integrated approach that 

includes elements such as the following:

–Integration with and widespread availability of public 

transit

–Connected onstreet and offstreet walking and biking 

networks

–Ongoing promotional campaigns and activities

–Traffic safety education for children throughout their 

school years

–Visually rich, pedestrian-scale built environment

–Prohibition against right turn on red except where 

specifically permitted

–Routine photo enforcement

–Numerous other policy and facility details that make 

walking and bicycling easy, convenient, and enjoyable

◗ Many of the foreign hosts have established an urban 

street user hierarchy that gives the highest priority 

to walking, biking, and public transit. The street user 

hierarchy has been developed to support a range of 

public policy goals, such as livability, sustainability, public 

health, climate change, and congestion management. 

The hierarchy guides decisions about transportation 

policy, planning, design, operations, and maintenance. 

For example, typical street design begins by considering 

the space needs of pedestrians and bicyclists first, rather 

than designating the motor vehicle space and then 

giving pedestrians and bicyclists the leftover space 

(if there is any). Another example from Sweden is its 

winter snow removal policy, which gives highest priority 

to streets with transit routes and bicycling facilities.

◗ “Safety in numbers” (also called “awareness in 

numbers”) is a clear motivator behind the promotion 

of walking and bicycling as a safety improvement 

strategy. Most host countries indicated that they promoted walking and bicycling for a variety of reasons 

(lower overall transportation delivery cost, sustainability, 

space and energy efficiency, health and wellness, etc.), 

and improved safety was often mentioned as one of the 

outcomes of higher levels of walking and biking. Their 

rationale is that when pedestrians and bicyclists are a 

common element in the street environment, motorists 

expect their presence and take the necessary precautions at potential conflict points, such as when a motorist 

turns right across a through bicycle lane. Anecdotally, 

the scan team routinely observed this type of motorist 

behavior during field visits, in which motorists were 

more aware of pedestrians and bicyclists at conflict 

points. However, it is not clear whether this improved 

motorist awareness was due primarily to the increased 

numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists, or due at least in 

part to improved roadway designs, motorist education, 

and/or police enforcement.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 3

Key Findings

Engineering

◗ There was thoughtful consideration of a “false sense 

of security and safety” when designing pedestrian 

and bicyclist facilities. This expression was mentioned 

numerous times by the engineers and planners responsible for facility design details. The host countries are not 

rashly constructing facilities to promote walking and 

bicycling without regard for safety. In fact, some host 

countries pay meticulous attention to crash and injury 

data to determine which road designs are safest for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, Sweden has 

implemented nationwide the STRADA (Swedish Traffic 

Accident Data Acquisition) database that integrates 

police crash data and hospital admissions data. The 

STRADA database addresses the underreporting problem common to walking and biking, and gives Swedish 

engineers and planners a more complete picture of 

walking and biking safety.

◗ The scan team observed several innovative traffic 

signal features and design practices that have the 

potential to improve pedestrian safety in the 

United States:

z Passive detection of pedestrians in crosswalks to 

truncate, extend, or cancel the pedestrian phase 

at traffic signals

z Near-side traffic signals that reduce motorist 

encroachment on the pedestrian crosswalk

z Near-side pedestrian signal heads placed to encourage 

pedestrians to view oncoming traffic

z Raised crosswalks at unsignalized pedestrian crossings 

(applied at midblock locations, roundabouts, entrances 

to traffic-calmed districts, etc.)

z Crossing islands, even if confined or limited space 

requires the use of smaller islands

z Railing used to direct pedestrian movements to 

defined crossing locations

◗ The scan team observed several approaches and 

design practices that could be used to improve 

bicyclist safety in the United States:

z Approaches to address right-turn crashes, such as 

advance stop lines for bicyclists, “Trixi” (heated convex) 

mirrors or other specialized motor vehicle-based 

mirrors, bike boxes, leading green phase for bicyclists, 

and right-turn-on-red restrictions for motorists

z Separated facilities, such as cycle tracks, separated bike 

lanes, and shared-use paths with delineated space for 

pedestrians and bicyclists

z Bicycle-specific traffic signals to reduce turning conflicts 

at signalized intersections

z Pavement markings, such as dashed bike lanes 

through intersections, colored lanes at conflict points, 

and longitudinal bike symbols at driveways and 

stop-controlled cross streets (oriented to be seen 

by motorists turning across the bike lane)

◗ The scan team observed the use of low-speed street 

designs in both residential and commercial areas 

that were especially conducive to walking and 

bicycling. For example, the city of Bristol, England, has 

implemented 20 mile-per-hour (mi/h) (32.1 kilometerper-hour (km/h)) “home zones” in its new residential 

development. Several cities in Sweden, Germany, and 

Switzerland also have implemented low-speed streets 

(20 to 30 km/h (12.4 to 18.6 mi/h)) in both residential 

and commercial areas. However, several foreign hosts 

indicated that certain conditions should be met for 

these low-speed street designs to operate properly: 

1) speeds of the different modes should be similar, 

2) flows (volumes) of users should be similar, and 

3) “see and be seen” is a critical design element.

◗ The scan team observed close integration of 

bicycling and walking considerations with public 

transit (including intercity rail) that makes longer 

intermodal commutes by bike practical as well as 

safer and more convenient. These considerations 

include the following:

z A variety of bike parking solutions at stations, including 

plentiful and convenient bike racks, covered outdoor 

parking, and secured indoor parking

z Policies that permit bikes on trains and buses, even 

during peak times

z Bike rental or sharing programs located in or near train 

or bus stations

z Channels or ramps on stairways that make it easier to 

use steps while pushing a bike

z Public taxis with quick-mount bike racks for passengers

Education

◗ Many of the foreign hosts have pervasive and 

widespread traffic safety education programs for 

children. The education programs start at an early age 

and some continue through the teenage years. These 

traffic safety programs involve participation of a wide 
4 | Executive Summary

variety of organizations, including schools, businesses, 

civic organizations, police, public health groups, and 

parks and recreation departments. For example, several 

countries had a Children’s Traffic Club program that 

provided ongoing, age-appropriate safety material to 

parents and children, as well as fun learning activities. 

The city of Winterthur, Switzerland, uses a “traffic garden” 

(a landscaped, reduced-scale closed course that includes 

traffic signals, roundabouts, bike lanes at intersections, 

sidewalks, work zones, public benches, and other 

common traffic situations) to teach elementary 

school-age children to ride bikes safely in traffic. 

◗ Bicycle helmet use is encouraged, but not required 

by law. The scan team found higher levels of bicycle 

helmet use than expected in the countries visited. 

Helmets were uniformly encouraged for children and 

adults. Most countries emphasized physical activity first 

and helmets second. Their rationale was that required 

helmet use discourages bicycling (physical activity), 

which could have a greater public health detriment 

than head injuries due to crashes. Bicycle helmet use 

was recognized not as a crash-prevention measure, but 

as the most effective countermeasure for preventing 

head injury from a bicycle crash.

Enforcement

◗ The scan team observed the widespread use of 

photo enforcement for traffic signals and speed 

limits. Although photo enforcement is viewed primarily 

as a tool for improving motor vehicle safety, better 

motorist compliance with speed limits and traffic signals 

also improves pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Encouragement

◗ Many of the foreign hosts use promotional programs and activities to encourage and enable more 

walking and biking. These encouragement activities 

are seen as a tool to meet their modal share goals as 

well as increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Many 

foreign hosts viewed higher levels of walking and biking 

as a way to improve safety (the “safety in numbers” 

effect). Where walking and bicycling are considered the 

norm, a certain amount of encouragement happens 

inherently, by example. Common examples of promotional programs and activities include the following:

z Well-marked routes with wayfinding signs and 

printed maps

z Web-based biking and walking route planning and 

maps, including extensive countryside pathways 

inviting tourists and other occasional users

z Shared bike programs for public agencies, private 

companies, or the general public

z Free or very low-cost public-use bicycles

z Routine provision of quality bike racks at convenient 

locations

z Employer-sponsored programs (bike-to-work incentives)

z Marketing campaigns to reduce or shift short car trips

z Public health-sponsored wellness and physical activity 

programs

z Personalized travel planning

Evaluation

◗ Many of the foreign hosts provide regular performance reports on pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

and mobility. These performance reports measure the 

agency’s progress toward stated goals and outcomes, 

and are used to refine policies and strategies to ensure 

that goals are met. For example, the city of Copenhagen publishes a Bicycle Account every 2 years that 

reports on several measures, such as cyclist mode split, 

safety, and perceived comfort and safety. The most 

common pedestrian and bicyclist performance measures were usage (e.g., counts, mode share) and safety 

(e.g., fatalities and serious injuries), which were typically 

reported on an annual basis.

◗ Several cities provided a “showcase” counter in 

a highly visible location to demonstrate daily and 

annual bicycle use. Although this tool was noted to 

yield varying and, in some cases, inaccurate results, 

it was a point of pride and a reminder that what gets 

counted counts.

Implementation Plan

Based on the findings summarized in this report, the 

scan team developed the following implementation 

recommendations. 

Policy

◗ Encourage transportation policy (at national, State, 

and local levels) that addresses the safety and 

mobility of walking, biking, and other nonmotorized 

modes so that these modes are given the highest 

priority in the road user hierarchy. This hierarchy, when 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 5

integrated with public transit, simultaneously addresses 

numerous other public policy goals, such as livability, 

sustainability, public health, climate change, and congestion management. To implement this policy, establish 

specific and measurable outcomes with performance 

targets, including usage and safety experience (see the 

“Evaluation” recommendation in this section). Specific 

near-term actions include the following: 

z Revising, strengthening, and publicizing the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) policy 

statement Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Travel: A Recommended Approach

z Conducting a survey of domestic and international best 

practices related to policies that facilitate safety and 

increased rates of walking and bicycling. Such policies 

should be examined at Federal, State, and local levels. 

Examples include Complete Streets policies in the 

United States, the national bicycling plan for Germany, 

the United Kingdom Cycling City program, and Swiss 

legislation on human-powered mobility. 

z Developing a national strategy to improve education 

for transportation professionals on walking and 

bicycling design and planning

z Completing a new National Bicycling and Walking 

Study that will set new mode share and safety targets 

for walking and bicycling

Engineering

◗ Evaluate and consider implementing innovative 

signal features and geometric designs to improve 

pedestrian safety at street crossings. Examples of 

pedestrian features that can be implemented now 

are as follows:

z Raised crosswalks at pedestrian crossings (applied at 

midblock and roundabouts)

z Passive detection of pedestrians in waiting areas and 

crosswalks to extend or cancel pedestrian phase

z Accessible pedestrian signals with confirmation lighting

z Crossing islands at pedestrian crossings, even on 

narrow roadway widths

z Partial crossings at wide signalized intersections with 

wide medians (additional push buttons and pedestrian 

signals will be required)

Examples of pedestrian features that could be 

implemented in the short term with appropriate 

evaluation are as follows:

z Near-side pedestrian signal heads that encourage

 viewing oncoming traffic

z Passive detection of pedestrians in waiting areas and 

crosswalks to truncate the pedestrian phase

◗ Evaluate and consider implementation of innovative 

strategies to improve bicyclist safety. Examples of 

bicyclist features that can be implemented now are 

as follows:

z Convex mirrors

z Right-turn-on-red car restrictions

z Advance stop lines for bicyclists

z Continuation of bike lanes up to intersections

z Bike lanes between traffic lanes

z Shared bike lanes and right-turn lanes

z Bike routes on lower volume parallel roadways

z Contraflow bicycle lanes

z Path user divisions

z Dashed bike lanes through intersections

z Rotated or longitudinal bicycle symbols at driveways

Examples of bicyclist features that would likely require 

evaluation are as follows:

z Cycle tracks

z Accommodating two-stage left turns at signalized 

intersections

z Dashed bicycle lanes on narrow roadways

z Railing separating pedestrians and bicycles at 

intersections

z Colored lanes at conflict points

z Reserving yellow for bicycle and pedestrian pavement 

markings

◗ Evaluate the applicability of lower speed street 

designs in residential and commercial zones. The 

evaluation should address the differences in application 

between residential and commercial areas, and should 

more clearly define implementation issues and application criteria for the design of low-speed streets in the 

United States that are practical, safe, and efficient for all 

road users.

◗ Develop guidance on best practices for integrating 

bicycle and pedestrian considerations into public 

transit, including intercity rail. These considerations 

include permitted times of bike boarding, bike parking, 

bikes on trains and buses, and bike sharing (e.g., city 

bike) programs. Two existing documents may partially 

address this need: Transit Cooperative Research 

Program Synthesis 62–Integration of Bicycles and 

Transit (2005) and Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit 

Agencies (FHWA-SA-07-017). Based on a review of 
6 | Executive Summary

these documents, a best practices guide may be 

desirable that includes any strategies observed during 

the scan that were not part of the two reports. Once a 

suitable guide has been identified or developed, Web 

conferences and other training should be provided to 

transportation and transit engineers and planners.

Education

◗ Institutionalize ongoing traffic safety education that 

starts at an early age, including knowledge and 

skill-based learning. The safety education programs 

can be multifaceted and include a variety of agencies 

and organizations for optimal delivery. To accomplish 

this, a national set of bicycle and pedestrian education 

standards and curriculum should be developed that 

establishes the minimum amount of information to 

be included and at what ages. The curriculum should 

incorporate practical applications of this safety information in safe settings, such as a mock pedestrian 

crossing or the traffic garden concept.

◗ Unify traffic safety campaigns (including bicycle and 

pedestrian safety) under a single national brand.

For example, the United Kingdom’s Department for 

Transport has developed a road safety program 

called THINK! that includes educational materials 

for numerous safety focus areas. To accomplish this, 

the U.S. DOT should develop a single brand and 

require that it be included on all highway safety 

educational and communication materials it produces. 

U.S. DOT highway safety materials are disseminated 

through a wide number of partners, including national 

associations, State and local governments, law enforcement agencies, medical organizations, public health 

departments, vehicle manufacturers, and insurance 

companies.

Enforcement

◗ Promote the use of photo enforcement as a tool to 

improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) already promote 

photo enforcement. Their Web sites (see http://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/index.cfm and http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

speedmgt) have extensive information on implementing 

speed and red light running campaigns. 

Encouragement

◗ Develop and implement programs that encourage 

and enable regular walking and biking. Examples of 

these strategies include the following:

z Web-based route planning

z Walking and biking maps

z Social marketing campaigns

z Shared-bike programs for the public or municipal 

employees

Evaluation

◗ Develop and implement a performance monitoring 

and reporting program that annually measures 

progress toward stated goals and outcomes.

Key performance measures are usage and safety 

experience. Other measures include pedestrian and 

bicyclist facility condition and extent (e.g., mileage). 

Existing count and safety evaluation efforts (Alliance for 

Biking and Walking’s Bicycling and Walking in the U.S. 

Benchmarking Report, Alta/Institute of Transportation 

Engineers National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Program, FHWA’s National Bicycling and Walking 

Study) should be better coordinated and unified. 

National guidance should be given on a consistent 

format and a sampling strategy to develop national 

estimates. Additionally, the 1994 National Bicycling 

and Walking Study should be updated to reflect current 

conditions and renew or reestablish national goals for 

bicycling and walking safety and usage.

Next Steps

As evidenced in this report, the scan team identified numerous approaches in the host countries for improving walking 

and biking safety and mobility that merit consideration in the 

United States. The next critical step in FHWA’s International 

Technology Scanning Program is the implementation phase, 

which has already begun. Scan team members will communicate the key findings, promote implementation ideas, and 

help advance the adoption of the approaches and practices 

described in this report. Ultimately, though, the scan team will 

rely on champions from numerous agencies, organizations, 

and groups throughout the United States to put into practice 

policies and approaches that will ultimately increase the 

safety of walking and bicycling and the use of walking and 

bicycling for transportation.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 7

Chapter 1|

 Introduction

I

n May 2009, a team of 12 transportation professionals 

from the United States with expertise in bicycling and 

walking visited five countries in Europe (table 1) to 

identify and assess effective approaches to improve 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility. The countries 

were chosen because of their innovative approaches to 

nonmotorized transportation, as well as the potential transferability of their policies and practices. Some, like Denmark, 

had experienced an increase in car use in the 1960s and 

1970s, and subsequently reoriented their transportation 

policy to give priority to bicycling and walking. The scan team 

heard presentations from and had informal discussions with 

the foreign hosts. During most visits, the scan team also went 

on guided field visits (by bike as well as by foot) to better 

understand and experience the design and operation of 

various walking and bicycling facilities. These field visits were 

invaluable in documenting the facilities through photos and 

video, observing traffic behavior, and experiencing firsthand 

how well a design or operational strategy worked.

Table 1. Hosted locations for the pedestrian and

bicyclist safety and mobility scanning study.

Countries Visited Localities Visited

Sweden Lund and Malmö

Denmark Copenhagen and Nakskov

Germany Berlin and Potsdam

Switzerland Bern and Winterthur

United Kingdom London and Bristol

The scan team identified numerous possible approaches to 

improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility in the 

United States. The scan team also prepared a list of implementation items for approaches that should be pursued in the 

United States. An executive summary (released June 24, 

2009) provided a quick-response overview of the team’s 

findings and recommendations. This final report describes the 

scan team’s findings and recommendations in more detail.

Background

There is increasing recognition of the need to improve 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety. In 2008, the United States 

had 4,378 pedestrian and 716 bicyclist deaths, accounting 

for 14 percent of all U.S. highway fatalities. The Federal 

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of Safety has 

established pedestrian and bicyclist safety as one of its 

top priorities. Two other priorities, intersection safety and 

speed management, are issues that also significantly affect 

pedestrians and bicyclists. The American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 

an association of State transportation departments, has 

identified two of the top 10 goals in its Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan as “making walking and street crossing safer” 

and “ensuring safer bicycle travel.” 

FHWA has recently launched two new programs targeted 

at increasing pedestrian and bicyclist travel and improving 

safety. Safe Routes to School is a $612 million national 

program with the majority of funds devoted to infrastructure 

improvements. The Nonmotorized Pilot Program, which 

provides $100 million to four communities to improve 

bicycling and walking facilities, aims to evaluate how 

improved walking and biking facilities can carry a 

significant portion of the urban transportation load.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this scanning study was to identify and assess 

effective approaches to improve pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety and mobility. The specific topics of interest were 

the following:

◗ Improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety —Approaches 

(engineering, education, and enforcement) that have 

been successful in improving pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety. These approaches can include both infrastructure 

and policy.

◗ Safe Routes to School programs —Approaches and 

policies for improving safety for child pedestrians and 

bicyclists, especially those that support programs like 

Safe Routes to School

◗ Monitoring usage levels and exposure —Quantitative 

methods of monitoring pedestrian and bicyclist usage 
8 | Chapter 1: Introduction

levels (for example, counts and surveys) and exposure 

to crashes

◗ Safety research and evaluation —Recently completed 

or ongoing research and collaboration opportunities in 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety

Amplifying questions (see Appendix A) on these topic areas 

were sent in advance to each host country. The amplifying 

questions informed the hosts about the scan team’s focus 

areas and provided some structure to host country 

presentations and discussion. 

Host Country Information

Over the course of 2 weeks, the scan team met with 

national and local officials in 10 cities in five host countries 

(see table 1). A travel itinerary and meeting schedule is in 

Appendix B. A list of contact persons for each host agency 

is in Appendix C.

Scan Team Members

The 12 scan team members (see figure 1) represented 

Federal agencies, State departments of transportation 

(DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs), research agencies, and a professional 

organization:

◗ Edward L. Fischer (AASHTO cochair), Oregon DOT

◗ Gabe K. Rousseau (FHWA cochair), FHWA

◗ Shawn M. Turner (report facilitator), 

Texas Transportation Institute

◗ Ernest (Ernie) J. Blais, FHWA Vermont Division

◗ Cindy L. Engelhart, Virginia DOT

◗ David R. Henderson, Miami-Dade County MPO

◗ Jonathan (Jon) A. Kaplan, Vermont Agency of 

Transportation

◗ Vivian M. (Kit) Keller, Association of Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Professionals (APBP)

◗ James Mackay, Bicycle Technical Committee, 

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

◗ Priscilla A. Tobias, Illinois DOT

◗ Diane E. Wigle, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA)

◗ Charlie V. Zegeer, University of North Carolina 

Highway Safety Research Center

Contact and biographical Information for the scan team 

members is in Appendix D.

Figure 1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility scan team (front row, left to right: Charlie Zegeer, 

Shawn Turner, Kit Keller, Priscilla Tobias, Diane Wigle, Cindy Engelhart; back row, left to right: 

David Henderson, Jon Kaplan, Ernie Blais, Ed Fischer, James Mackay, Gabe Rousseau).
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 9

Report Organization

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of various 

innovative approaches that other countries have used to 

improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, as well as to recommend specific implementation elements that are most likely 

to improve the safety and mobility of pedestrians and 

bicyclists in the United States.

Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the broad issues and 

themes that emerged on the scan and provides a context 

for understanding the details provided in later chapters of 

the report.

Chapters 3 through 8 have been organized around a 

familiar categorization—the 3Es: Engineering, Education, 

and Enforcement—but it has been expanded to include 

two additional Es, Encouragement and Evaluation.

◗ Chapter 3 contains information on engineering and 

facility design topics.

◗ Chapter 4 addresses safety education.

◗ Chapter 5 includes enforcement approaches.

◗ Chapter 6 discusses the encouragement and promotion 

of walking and biking as sustainable travel modes. 

◗ Chapter 7 includes information on the evaluation of 

walking and biking programs (such as monitoring and 

reporting usage and progress toward policy goals). 

◗ Chapter 8 provides the scan team’s recommendations 

and implementation plan.
10 | 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 11

Chapter 2|

Comprehensive Approach to Pedestrian 

and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility

I

mproving pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility in 

the United States requires a comprehensive approach 

that includes numerous groups working toward solutions 

from several different angles. This chapter outlines the 

elements of a comprehensive approach, provides a 

discussion of the broad issues and themes that emerged 

on the scan, and provides a context for understanding the 

details in later chapters of this report.

Policies and Factors Influencing Pedestrian 

and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility

From all of the information that the scan team gathered and 

everything it observed, it appears that higher levels of walking 

and biking safety and mobility are due to a deliberate 

combination of policies, approaches, and other influences 

that include the following:

◗ Integration of transportation and land use policy

◗ Transportation planning and design policies that are 

mode neutral or that give priority to vulnerable road 

users (like pedestrians and bicyclists)

◗ Political support at all levels, including elected officials, 

government staff, and the general public

◗ Provision and pricing of motor vehicle parking

◗ The high costs of owning and operating a private motor 

vehicle (sales tax, annual registration fees, gas, parking, 

fines for moving violations, etc.)

◗ A comprehensive, continuous, integrated approach that 

includes elements such as the following:

z Integration with and widespread availability of public 

transit

z Connected onstreet and offstreet walking and biking 

networks

z Ongoing promotional campaigns and activities

z Traffic safety education for children throughout their 

school years

z Visually rich, pedestrian-scale built environment

z Prohibition against right turn on red except where 

specifically permitted 

z Routine photo enforcement

z Numerous other policy and facility details that make 

walking and bicycling easy, convenient, and enjoyable

This comprehensive approach extends beyond simply 

providing engineering treatments or innovative facilities 

for pedestrians and bicyclists. From the scanning study, it 

appeared that facilities could increase levels of walking and 

biking as well as improve safety. For example, studies in 

Copenhagen1 indicate that bicyclist levels increase by about 

20 percent when new cycle tracks (bikeway facilities that 

provide separation from motor vehicles, see Chapter 3) 

are built. However, many of the foreign hosts indicated 

that facilities were only one necessary element of a 

comprehensive approach. 

In Switzerland, the hosts described examples of their 

land use policy that favored transit and bicycle use. The 

policy for new development was that it must occur along 

corridors with existing or planned transit service or bicycle 

routes. Exceptions to this policy are considered on a 

case-by-case basis by the city government or regional 

planning authority.

In Copenhagen, the city government has adopted several 

different policies (see figure 2) that contribute to higher 

levels of walking and bicycling and, as a result, improved 

safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, Copenhagen has policies that limit automobile parking (through 

prices and availability) in the inner city and surrounding 

areas. Through various policies, the city government has 

encouraged urban workplaces to be located close to major 

public transit stations. A low emissions zone has been 

established in Copenhagen in which new policies seek to 

reduce particulate matter by 80 percent. The city has also 

placed a restriction on large trucks (heavier than 18 tons) 

in and around the city center. The city and national governments are considering a congestion charging zone proposal 

 1Copenhagen 2006 Bicycle Account, www.kk.dk/Borger/

ByOgTrafik/cyklernesby/uk/bicycleaccount2006.aspx. 
12 | Chapter 2: Comprehensive Approach to Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility

for Copenhagen that would charge motorized vehicles 

3 Euros (about US$4.25) for passage during peak times 

(the charge would be 1.5 Euros, or about US$2.13, 

for daytime hours with free passage at night).

Many of the foreign hosts have established an urban street 

user hierarchy that gives the highest priority to walking, 

biking, and public transit. The street user hierarchy has been 

developed to support a range of public policy goals, such 

as livability, sustainability, public health, climate change, 

and congestion management. The hierarchy guides decisions 

about transportation policy, planning, design, operations, and 

maintenance. For example, typical street design begins by 

considering the space needs of pedestrians and bicyclists 

first, rather than designating the motor vehicle space and 

then giving pedestrians and bicyclists the leftover space 

(if there is any). Another example from Lund, Sweden, is 

its winter snow removal policy, which gives highest priority 

to streets with transit routes and bicycling facilities.

In several host cities, walking and biking were viewed not 

only as a transportation issue or solution, but also as a 

solution to multiple public policy goals, such as improved 

public health, improved sustainability and energy efficiency, 

reduced climate change, and increased tourism and 

economic development. The many policies that supported 

walking and biking reflected the widespread political 

support and recognition that walking and biking 

contribute more than just replacement of a car trip.

In several host cities, political support at various levels was 

clear and evident. In these cities, it was not just the city staff 

and biking and walking advocates who promoted biking and 

Figure 2. Several land use and transport policies influence walking and biking in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Parking pricing zones in Copenhagen

Low-emissions zone in Copenhagen Proposed congestion pricing zone in Copenhagen

Source: Presentation by Steffen Rasmussen, City of Copenhagen
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 13

walking; it was also the elected officials and key policymakers (see figure 3), city council, public works department 

manager and staff, tourism and economic development 

bureaus, and general public. For example, in Winterthur, 

Switzerland, city government and the general public have 

consistently supported walking and bicycling, even at the 

ballot box. In 1955, motor vehicle traffic was restricted from 

the main street (Untertor/Marktgasse) through the historic 

city center. In 1973, by popular vote, motor vehicle traffic 

was prohibited from the entire historic city center. In 1983, 

popular vote approved the “Netzkonzept 100km,” a 

100-kilometer (km) (62.1-mile (mi)) bicycle route network. 

The late 1980s and 1990s saw several more iterations of 

bicycle route plans and pedestrian improvements. Most 

recently, in May 2009, an overwhelming majority of Winterthur voters (67 percent) approved an extensive streetscape 

project (with numerous pedestrian and bicyclist elements) 

near the city’s main train station worth 84 million Swiss 

francs, or about US$78 million.

Historical Perspective and Changes in Policies 

and Culture

The host cities the scan team visited have not always had this 

ideal combination of policies and influences for walking and 

biking. In fact, many European cities experienced a decline in 

walking and biking in the late 1960s and early 1970s (see 

figure 4 on next page). Several host agencies described a key 

turning point in the early 1970s, when a consensus emerged 

from the general public and elected officials that transportation policies that excessively favored the private automobile 

needed to change. Therefore, what the scan team saw in 

several of the host cities is the cumulative effect of 30 to 40 

years of experience and culture change with transportation 

and land use policy and infrastructure design supportive of 

walking and biking.

The foreign hosts provided several before-and-after photos as 

tangible examples of streets, plazas, and other public places 

transformed by policies that restricted automobile use and 

favored walking, biking, and transit modes. For example, the 

Strøget area is Copenhagen’s main pedestrian shopping area 

and includes several streets on which motor vehicles are 

prohibited. Strøget was created in the 1960s when cars were 

beginning to dominate Copenhagen’s central city streets. City 

leaders wanted to ensure that some areas remained car free. 

Strøget is said to be the longest pedestrian shopping area in 

Europe, and is believed to be the inspiration for numerous 

other pedestrian streets and shopping areas. The left photo in 

figure 5 (see next page) shows Strøget before cars were 

prohibited, and the right photo shows Strøget in its current 

state as a vibrant pedestrian district.

As mentioned earlier, Winterthur has been making pedestrian improvements to its historical city center since 1955. 

The improvements started as motor vehicle restrictions on 

a single street and over the course of 50 years (see figure 

6 on page 15) extended to 15 hectares (37 acres, or 

1.6 million square feet) of a pedestrian-priority zone (the 

largest interrelated pedestrian zone in Switzerland). A city 

streetscape project was approved in May 2009 that would 

enlarge this pedestrian zone by 22 hectares (54 acres) for 

a total pedestrian-priority zone of 37 hectares (91 acres, or 

about 4 million square feet) around the historical city center 

and main train station. A before-and-after example for one 

street (Neumarkt) is shown in figure 7 (see page 16). 

In this example, a surface parking lot was converted to a 

plaza for outside café dining and an open-air market.

The historical city center of Bern, Switzerland, has experienced similar transformations in the past 30 to 40 years 

(see figure 8 on page 16). For example, a surface car 

parking lot in front of the Bundeshaus (the Swiss Federal 

Assembly Building) was converted to a public plaza with 

intermittent in-pavement public fountains. According to the 

Bern hosts, the plaza is quite crowded with pedestrians 

during the summer. At other times of the year, the Bundeshaus plaza is used for open-air markets, holiday decorations (including a lighted Christmas tree), and ice skating.

Safety in Numbers

The theory of “safety in numbers” (also called “awareness in 

numbers”) is a clear motivator behind the promotion of 

Figure 3. Deputy mayor of Copenhagen encourages

commuter bicyclists with breakfast bagels.

Source: Presentation by Steffen Rasmussen,

City of Copenhagen, Denmark
14 | Chapter 2: Comprehensive Approach to Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility

walking and bicycling as a safety improvement strategy. Most 

of the host countries indicated that they promoted walking 

and bicycling for a variety of reasons (lower overall transportation delivery cost, sustainability, space and energy efficiency, 

health and wellness, etc.), and improved safety was often 

mentioned as one of the outcomes of higher levels of 

walking and biking. Their rationale is that when pedestrians 

and bicyclists are a common element in the street environment, motorists are more likely to expect their presence and 

take the necessary precautions at potential conflict points, 

such as when a motorist turns right across a through bicycle 

lane. Anecdotally, the scan team routinely observed this type 

of motorist behavior during field visits, in which motorists 

were more aware of pedestrians and bicyclists at conflict 

points (see figure 9 on page 17). However, it is not clear 

whether this improved motorist awareness was due primarily 

to the increased numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists, or 

due at least in part to improved roadway designs, motorist 

education, and/or police enforcement.

0

20

40

60

80

100 Amsterdam

Eindhoven

Enschede

Zuidoost-Limburg

Antwerpen

Manchester

Kopenhagen

Hannover

Basel

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 

Figure 4. Historical bicycle mode share in several European cities. 

Source: Continuous and integral: The cycling policies of Groningen and 

other European cycling cities2

 2 Available at www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/

Publication%207%20Continuous%20and%20integral.pdf.

Figure 5. Before-and-after photos of Strøget in Copenhagen. 

Source: Jan Gehl and Lars Gemzøe, New City Spaces, 2000

Strøget, 1960 Strøget, 2000
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 15

Figure 6. Historical development of a pedestrian priority zone in Winterthur, Switzerland. 

Source: Presentation by Stefan Gerber, City of Winterthur, Switzerland

Pedestrian priority zone in Winterthur historical city center, 2009

1955: Motor vehicle restrictions on main street 1970: Motor vehicle restrictions extended

1980: Motor vehicle restrictions extended 2000: Motor vehicle restrictions extended
16 | Chapter 2: Comprehensive Approach to Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility

Key Findings

The key findings on a comprehensive approach for 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility were as follows:

◗ Numerous factors contribute to higher rates of 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements and 

higher walking and biking mode splits in the host 

countries. From all of the information the scan team 

gathered and everything it observed, it appears that 

higher levels of walking and biking safety and mobility 

are due to a deliberate combination of policies, 

approaches, and other influences.

◗ The host cities the scan team visited have not always 

had this ideal combination of factors and influences 

for walking and biking. In fact, many European cities 

experienced a decline in walking and biking in the late 

1960s and early 1970s. Several host agencies described 

a key turning point in the early 1970s, when a consensus emerged from the general public and elected 

officials that transportation policies that excessively 

favored the private automobile needed to change. 

Therefore, what the scan team saw in several host cities 

is the cumulative effect of 30 to 40 years of experience 

and culture change with transportation and land use 

policy and infrastructure design supportive of walking 

and biking.

◗ Many of the foreign hosts have established an urban 

street user hierarchy that gives the highest priority to 

walking, biking, and public transit. The street user 

Figure 8. Before-and-after photos of public plaza in front of the 

Bundeshaus in Bern, Switzerland.

Source: www.parlament.ch

Bundeshaus Plaza with vehicle parking, no date available

Figure 7. Before-and-after photos of pedestrian priority zones in 

Winterthur, Switzerland.

Source: Presentation by Stefan Gerber, City of Winterthur, Switzerland

Neumarkt, 1980 (note tall white building in center background)

Neumarkt, 2003 (note tall white building in right background) Bundeshaus Plaza with pedestrian plaza, May 2009
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 17

hierarchy has been developed to support a range of 

public policy goals, such as livability, sustainability, public 

health, climate change, and congestion management. 

The hierarchy guides decisions about transportation 

policy, planning, design, operations, and maintenance. 

For example, typical street design begins by considering 

the space needs of pedestrians and bicyclists first, rather 

than designating the motor vehicle space and then 

giving pedestrians and bicyclists the leftover space 

(if there is any). Another example from Sweden is its 

winter snow removal policy, which gives highest priority 

to streets with transit routes or bicycling facilities.

◗ “Safety in numbers” (also called “awareness in 

numbers”) is a clear motivator behind the promotion 

of walking and bicycling as a safety improvement 

strategy. Most host countries indicated that they 

promoted walking and bicycling for a variety of reasons 

(lower overall transportation delivery cost, sustainability, 

space and energy efficiency, health and wellness, etc.), 

and improved safety was often mentioned as one of 

the outcomes of higher levels of walking and biking. 

Their rationale is that when pedestrians and bicyclists 

are a common element in the street environment, 

motorists expect their presence and take the necessary 

precautions at potential conflict points, such as when 

a motorist turns right across a through bikeway.

Figure 9. Motorist waits for through bicyclists before turning right across

cycle track in Copenhagen, Denmark.
18 | 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 19

Chapter 3|

Engineering and Design Elements

I

n the context of this report, engineering means designing 

and building infrastructure (streets and other public 

spaces) that is safe, convenient, accessible, and comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists to use. Infrastructure 

and facilities (e.g., sidewalks, bikeways, and trails) are 

often the most visible element of government support for 

walking and biking modes. Similarly, adequate facilities are 

often mentioned as a required element for those who do not 

walk or bike. This chapter highlights numerous examples of 

street design and engineering that the scan team noted 

during the scanning study as conducive to pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety and mobility. 

Implementing Foreign Design Practices in the 

United States

Some policies, practices, and designs are easily transferrable 

and can be immediately implemented. However, implementing some foreign policies and design practices in 

the United States may require a safety evaluation and/or 

implementation criteria. For example, separated bicycle 

facilities should be evaluated in the context of typical 

motorist and bicyclist behavior and safety experience in the 

United States before being widely implemented. Separated 

onroad bicycle facilities may be quite effective in Denmark, 

for example, but their effectiveness may be at least partly a 

product of Danish culture and behavior or a result of their 

widespread implementation.

However, foreign practices (like separated bicycle facilities) 

should not be dismissed outright simply because current 

American culture and behavior may be different. Culture and 

behavior can be changed, but these changes often occur 

over longer time periods than covered in a typical safety 

evaluation. For example, separated bicycle facilities could be 

evaluated at a few trial locations in the United States and 

show no clear safety benefits in a typical 1- to 2-year safety 

evaluation. But in 5 to 10 years, as more bicyclists use 

separated facilities and motorist and bicyclist behavior adapts, 

safety could improve dramatically. Unfortunately, this increase 

in safety would not be captured in typical safety evaluations 

because they do not capture long-term behavior changes. 

Many of the host countries have undergone a culture change 

over the past 40 years that has returned to an increased 

emphasis on walking and bicycling safety and mobility. 

Changes of this sort can happen if fostered by a careful, 

evidence-based approach.

False Sense of Security and Safety

The foreign hosts gave thoughtful consideration to a “false 

sense of security and safety” when designing pedestrian and 

bicyclist facilities. This expression was mentioned numerous 

times by the engineers and planners responsible for facility 

design details. The host countries are not rashly constructing 

facilities in an effort to promote walking and bicycling without 

regard for safety. In fact, some host countries are paying 

meticulous attention to crash and injury data to determine 

which road designs are safest for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

For example, Sweden has implemented nationwide the 

STRADA (Swedish Traffic Accident Data Acquisition) database 

that integrates police crash data and hospital admissions 

data. The STRADA database addresses the underreporting 

problem common to walking and biking, and gives Swedish 

engineers and planners a more complete picture of walking 

and biking safety.

Engineering and Design Elements 

for Pedestrians

The scan team observed several innovative traffic signal 

features and design practices that have the potential to 

improve pedestrian safety in the United States. This section 

highlights numerous examples of engineering and design 

elements for pedestrians that are not commonplace in 

the United States. 

PUFFIN Crossing

The PUFFIN (Pedestrian User-Friendly Intelligent) crossing 

is the newest type of pedestrian traffic signal in the United 

Kingdom and includes several design features intended to 

improve pedestrian safety:

◗ Near-side pedestrian signal head (figure 10, see 

next page) that encourages pedestrians to view 

oncoming traffic
20 | Chapter 3: Engineering and Design Elements

◗ Simplified pedestrian signal phasing that includes 

“green man” (walk) and “red man” (don’t walk) 

phases, but eliminates a flashing “don’t walk” 

(i.e., don’t start) phase

◗ Passive detection of pedestrians (figure 11) in crosswalks, waiting areas, and landings to truncate, extend, 

or cancel the pedestrian phase at traffic signals

◗ An indicator light that confirms when the pedestrian 

signal has been activated

◗ Tactile signal phasing indicators for visually impaired 

pedestrians

In the United Kingdom, PUFFIN crossings are being phased 

in to replace the typical pedestrian traffic signal, which is 

referred to as a PELICAN (PEdestrian LIght CoNtrolled) 

crossing. A Department for Transport brochure indicates 

that the PUFFIN crossing has these benefits:

Safer for Pedestrians:

◗ The sensors that see you at a PUFFIN crossing also 

control the traffic lights.

◗ Because there is no flashing red traffic light sequence, 

drivers can no longer start to move until you have 

finished crossing.

◗ You can see the pedestrian signal and watch traffic 

approaching at the same time.

◗ Partially sighted pedestrians can see the near-side 

pedestrian signals more easily than a signal on the other 

side of the road.

 Better for Drivers:

◗ Traffic lights change to green as soon as the crossing is 

clear, so drivers will no longer be stopped unnecessarily 

if there are no pedestrians in the road.

◗ Traffic won’t be stopped if pedestrians push the button 

and then cross the road before the traffic lights change 

to red, or if they push the button, then change their 

mind and walk away from the crossing.

Offset or Staggered Pedestrian Crossing

The design of an offset or staggered pedestrian crossing 

places oncoming traffic in the crossing pedestrian’s field 

of view so the pedestrian is more likely to notice it. Offset 

pedestrian crossings (figure 12) can be used at both 

signalized and unsignalized crosswalks. Depending on 

site conditions, the offset can be a right angle or skewed. 

The most important design feature is that the offset forces 

pedestrians to walk longitudinally in the median for a 

short distance so they face oncoming traffic.

Near-Side Traffic Signals

Near-side traffic signals for motor vehicles are common in 

all of the countries the scan team visited. The near-side 

traffic signals are mounted on cantilever support arms 

Figure 10. Near-side pedestrian signal with confirmation light in Bristol,

United Kingdom.

Figure 11. Automated pedestrian sensors 

for adapting signal timing for pedestrians 

in Bristol, United Kingdom.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 21

(over the traffic lanes), as well as on shorter poles mounted 

on the side (and median, if present) of the street (figure 

13). The foreign hosts indicated that near-side traffic signals 

are effective at reducing motorist encroachment on the 

pedestrian crosswalk. For example, at most intersections, 

motorists are unable to see the traffic signal if they stop 

too far forward in the pedestrian crosswalk. There was 

discussion that near-side traffic signals are more visible 

to approaching motorists and provide a visual target at 

the appropriate stopping point (before vehicles enter the 

intersection). There was also discussion that far-side traffic 

signals may actually induce more red-light running, since 

the visual target is on the far side of the 

intersection. The hosts did not provide any 

safety data on this topic, only anecdotal 

experience.

Raised Crosswalks

Research in Sweden by Ekman and others 

has concluded that raised crosswalks at 

unsignalized crossings can be more effective 

than other traffic control devices (like 

flashing beacons) because they control 

speed at the actual pedestrian crossing. 

Consequently, slowed vehicles are more 

likely to yield the right-of-way to crossing 

pedestrians. The scan team observed the 

use of raised crosswalks in several countries 

(they were most common in Sweden and 

the United Kingdom) at midblock locations, 

roundabouts (figure 14, see next page), 

and entrances to traffic-calmed districts. In 

Sweden, there has been some opposition 

from drivers of emergency response and 

other large vehicles (like buses and trucks) 

to the raised crosswalks on major arterial 

streets. A unique feature of the raised 

crosswalk in figure 14 is that drivers have 

to slow down to mount the crosswalk, but 

the slope is gradual so drivers are not jolted 

at slow speeds. This was done to address 

the concerns of large vehicle operators.

Crossing Islands

Crossing islands, used most often by 

pedestrians and sometimes by bicyclists, 

are a common design element in the United 

States, but the frequency of use appeared 

to be greater in Europe (especially in the 

United Kingdom and Sweden). Crossing 

islands (sometimes with internally illuminated bollards) appeared to be used more often, even 

when confined or limited street space required the use 

of smaller islands (figure 15, see next page). Most crossing 

islands were accessible to people using assistive devices 

for walking. Another common sight was the use of crossing 

islands at midblock locations without crosswalk markings.

Pedestrian Railing

Pedestrian railing was most common in the United 

Kingdom (figure 16, see next page), where it was used to 

direct pedestrian movements to preferred crossing locations 

Figure 12. Offset pedestrian crossing at a signalized intersection in Bristol,

United Kingdom.

Figure 13. Near-side traffic signals in Bern, Switzerland.
22 | Chapter 3: Engineering and Design Elements

at intersections and in median islands. It also offered a 

useful guide to pedestrians with visual disabilities. The 

railing appeared to be most common in areas with high 

pedestrian traffic (e.g., London).

Accessibility Features

Pedestrian walkways and plazas, particularly in Copenhagen, 

offered two smooth surfaces for pedestrians on foot or using 

assistive devices for walking (figure 17). This technique offers 

an option for communities seeking to 

incorporate historic surfaces such as cobblestone into their sidewalk system while 

complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Another practice observed in 

Copenhagen was a guide strip for wayfinding 

by pedestrians with visual disabilities that 

tracked through intersections and to the steps 

of important public buildings (figure 18). 

Scan team members also observed that 

truncated domes in Copenhagen were 

constructed of metal rather than rubber. 

The Swedish city of Malmö provided tactile 

diagrams of street crossings at several 

intersections (figure 19) that offered advance 

information for a safer crossing. In Bristol, 

United Kingdom, a tactile rotating knob 

(figure 19) was located on the bottom of 

near-side pedestrian signals to indicate when 

the crossing phase had started.

Engineering and Design Elements 

for Bicyclists

The scan team observed several innovative 

approaches and design practices that could 

be used to improve bicyclist safety in the 

United States. This section highlights numerous examples of engineering and design 

Figure 15. Median island with unmarked crosswalk in London, United Kingdom. elements for bicyclists. 

Figure 16. Railing is used to direct pedestrians to preferred crossing locations in London, United Kingdom.

Figure 14. Raised crosswalk at two-lane roundabout exit in Malmö, Sweeden.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 23

Separated Facilities

Separated bicycling facilities were in use in all five of the 

countries visited during the scanning study. The designs 

differed between countries and sometimes at different 

locations within a country. For the purposes of this report, 

the separated bicycle facilities are classified into these 

categories:

◗ Cycle track—A one-way exclusive bike lane that is 

separated from motor vehicle traffic by a curb and has 

an elevation slightly above the motor vehicle lane but 

below the pedestrian walkway or sidewalk. Cycle tracks 

sometimes transition to onstreet bike lanes as they cross 

street intersections. Cycle tracks were most common in 

Copenhagen, Denmark (figure 20, see next page).

◗ Cycle path—A one-way or two-way exclusive bike lane 

located parallel to an existing street, but separated by a 

full-height curb. Cycle paths are typically at the same 

elevation as the pedestrian walkway or sidewalk, but are 

often differentiated by a distinct color. In some cases, the 

cycle path was located on the outside of onstreet parking 

or onstreet transit stops. The scan team saw numerous 

two-way cycle paths in Sweden and Switzerland (figure 

21, see next page) and one-way cycle paths in Germany 

(figure 22).

◗ Cycle path on an independent alignment—A oneway or two-way bike path located on an alignment that 

is independent of the street network (figure 23, see 

page 25). When shared with pedestrians and other 

nonmotorized users, this path is comparable to a 

shared-use path in the United States.

Intersection Designs

Several different approaches were used to address bicyclist 

safety at intersections. The most common potential motoristbicyclist conflict occurs when motorists turn right across a 

bikeway that goes through an intersection. Another potential 

conflict occurs when a bicyclist attempts to turn left across 

motorists traveling through an intersection.

Advance stop lines for bikeways were used in several of the 

host countries (figure 24, see page 25). At some intersections, the advance stop line was combined with a leading 

green phase for bicyclists. The advance stop line provides 

better visibility for bicyclists because they are positioned in 

front of turning motor vehicles at the intersection. The 

advance stop line and bicycle traffic signals also provide 

bicyclists with a physical and temporal head start, which 

Figure 18. Tactile sidewalk strips leading to front door of public 

building in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Figure 19. Intersection accessibility features for pedestrians with 

visual impairments.

Figure 17. Smooth, accessible path on cobblestone sidewalk

in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Rotating knob on near-side pedestrian 

signal (Bristol, United Kingdom)

Tactile diagram of street 

crossing (Malmö, Sweden)
24 | Chapter 3: Engineering and Design Elements

permits through bicyclists to clear the intersection 

before motorists turn across the bikeway.

Large trucks often have blind spots along their front and 

side, and truck drivers have difficulty seeing bicyclists 

who may be in their path as they turn right across 

a bikeway. In Switzerland, engineers have developed 

a heated convex mirror (locally referred to as a “Trixi” 

mirror for a bicyclist crash victim) that is attached to a 

signal or utility pole at the intersection (figure 25). The 

convex mirror enables truck drivers to scan their blind 

spot before turning right across a bikeway. The bicyclist 

image size in the convex mirrors is still somewhat small 

and requires motorist awareness, especially for bicyclists 

in dark clothing or in low-light conditions. However, 

motorists’ use of mobile phones and texting devices—

a clinically proven distraction—is quite common in the 

United States and could reduce the effectiveness of the 

small bicyclist image size provided by convex mirrors. 

In the United Kingdom, the Department for Transport 

and other groups distribute an inexpensive Fresnel lens 

(called TruckView®) that can be attached to the side 

window of a truck to reduce the chance of a bicyclist 

being struck in a truck’s blind spot.3

Bike boxes (also called “Dutch pockets” and enlarged 

bike lanes) are another intersection design element 

used in several countries (figure 26). The main benefit 

of a bike box is for left-turning bicyclists who arrive on 

a red signal phase to position themselves in front of 

motorists so they are more visible and can clear the 

intersection before motorists. Most bike boxes have 

a distinct color as well as a bicycle symbol on the 

pavement. 

Most European traffic signal systems display a short 

simultaneous red and yellow indication before the 

green phase. This serves to alert queued traffic in 

advance of the green phase and alerts bicyclists that 

entering the bike box just before the green phase will 

likely result in a conflict with releasing traffic. There is 

no U.S. equivalent of the advance simultaneous red 

and yellow indication to provide a cue that the signal 

is changing. 

Several U.S. cities are experimenting with bike boxes 

(e.g., Cambridge, MA; Columbus, OH; New York, NY; 

Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA). One of the criticisms 

 3 See www.truckview.net/.

Figure 21. Two-way cycle path in Winterthur, Switzerland.

Figure 20. Cycle track in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Figure 22. One-way cycle path in Berlin, Germany.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 25

(at least in the United States) of bike boxes is that they are 

effective only if the bicyclist arrives at the intersection on the 

red signal phase, and that they may pose safety concerns to 

inexperienced bicyclists who try to use them when arriving in 

the middle of the through green phase. Several host countries dealt with this issue by providing a marked waiting space 

on the far side of the intersection for left-turning bicyclists to 

make a pedestrian-style left turn. Conflicts may result when 

bike boxes are used at locations where right turn on red is 

permitted (most of the foreign host countries did not permit 

right turn on red). Right turns on red are commonly allowed 

in the United States and motorists often do not come to a 

complete stop, only slow down sufficiently to make the turn. 

In most countries, right-turn-on-red restrictions for motorists 

were the norm rather than the exception. That is, right turn 

on red for motorists was restricted unless otherwise 

signed. In the United States, right turn on red is 

permitted unless otherwise signed.

Bicycle Traffic Signals

Bicycle-specific traffic signals were used in nearly all 

countries (the exception was the United Kingdom) 

to control bicycle traffic movements (figure 27, see 

next page). The bicycle traffic signals were smaller than 

the motor vehicle signals and were mounted on both 

cantilever support arms and short poles behind the 

curb. In most cases, a bicyclist plaque accompanied the 

signal or a bicycle symbol was integral to the signal lens 

cover. From the scan team’s anecdotal experiences, bicyclist 

comprehension of and adherence to the bicycle traffic signals 

appeared to be very good. In most cities, the bicycle traffic 

was dense enough that visiting or inexperienced bicyclists 

could simply follow the example of the bicyclists in front of 

them when trying to navigate a complicated intersection.

Bicycle traffic signals are used to reduce turning conflicts 

at signalized intersections and often provide separate and 

sometimes exclusive phases for bicyclists, such as the 

following:

◗ Bicyclists may be given an advance green that precedes 

the motorist green by several seconds. 

Figure 23. Cycle path on an independent alignment in Malmö, Sweden.

Figure 24. Advance stop lines for onstreet through and left-turn bike lanes 

in Bern, Switzerland.

Figure 25. Convex mirrors improve bicyclist visibility

for drivers of large or high-profile vehicles in

Bern, Switzerland. (Note: photo taken from

vantage point of motorist at stop line.)
26 | Chapter 3: Engineering and Design Elements

◗ Bicyclists may be given an exclusive green phase in 

which to make left turns.

◗ Bicyclists may be given a red phase while right-turning 

motorists have an exclusive turning phase.

Pavement Markings at Intersections and 

Conflict Areas

Several different types of pavement markings were used at 

intersections to reduce conflicts or direct attention to areas 

of potential conflict. The most common pavement marking 

was the use of color (blue in Denmark, red in Germany and 

Switzerland) for bike lanes (figure 28). Colored bike lanes 

have been tested in several U.S. cities (e.g., Burlington, VT; 

Cambridge, MA; Chicago, IL; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; St. 

Petersburg, FL; Tempe, AZ) as a way to guide bicyclists 

through complex intersections as well as to make turning 

or passing motorists aware they are crossing a bike lane. In 

most U.S. applications, the contrasting color pavement has 

been used for short sections of the bike lane and not as a 

continuous color treatment along the entire length of the 

bike lane. A Danish research study4 (described in Chapter 

7) found that the use of one blue bike lane crossing 

reduces the number of intersection crashes by 10 percent, 

whereas marking two and four blue bike lane crossings 

through an intersection increases the number of crashes 

by 23 percent and 60 percent, respectively. A study of 

blue bike lanes in Portland, OR, reached the following 

conclusions:5

 4 Jensen, Søren Underlien. “Safety Effects of Blue Cycle Crossings: 

A Before-After Study.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 

2008, pp. 742-750.

 5 Hunter, W.W., D.L. Harkey, J.R. Stewart, and M.L. Birk. Evaluation 

of the Blue Bike Lane Treatment Used in Bicycle/Motor Vehicle 

Conflict Areas in Portland, Oregon. FHWA-RD-00-150, Federal 

Highway Administration, August 2000.

Figure 27. Bicycle traffic signals control bicycle traffic movements 

at signalized intersections in Potsdam, Germany.

(Note: A blue plaque placed in the highest signal lens

is not intended to control bicycle movements.)

Figure 26. Bike boxes provide better visibility for turning bicyclists 

in London, United Kingdom.

Figure 28. Colored bike lane at potential conflict area in

Winterthur, Switzerland.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 27

◗ Significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and 

slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement 

area.

◗ More bicyclists followed the colored bike lane path.

◗ Fewer bicyclists turned their heads to scan for traffic 

or used hand signals.

At a few large intersections, onstreet bike lanes were dashed 

through intersections (with no fill color) to provide guidance 

to bicyclists (figure 29). 

In Germany, longitudinal bike symbols were provided at 

driveways and stop-controlled cross streets. These bike 

symbols were oriented to be seen by motorists turning 

across the bike lane (figure 30).

Another pavement marking used in Germany was a dashed 

bike lane line (figure 31). A dashed bike lane is also called 

an “advisory bike lane” or a “suggested bike lane” in other 

countries, such as the Netherlands. The dashed bike lane is 

used on narrower, lower volume streets that do not have 

sufficient width to provide a full-width bike lane and full-width 

motor vehicle lanes. Motor vehicles may enter the dashed 

bike lane to pass oncoming motor vehicles, but must share 

this dashed bike lane with bicyclists.

Signal Timing for Bicyclists

Copenhagen has several heavily used bike routes on which 

the motor vehicle traffic signals were synchronized to a 

bicyclist speed of 20 kilometers per hour (km/hr) (12 miles 

per hour (mi/h)) (figure 32, see next page). As long as a 

bicyclist maintains this average speed, he or she is very likely 

to pass through most intersections with a green phase. On 

the inbound route shown in figure 32, the traffic signals were 

synchronized in this pattern on Monday through Friday from 

6 to 10 a.m. In Danish, this was referred to as “grøn bølge” 

or “green wave.” Bicycle signal timings can also provide an 

earlier yellow and red indication to accommodate the 

increased clearance times bicyclists require at intersections.

Low-Speed Street Design

The scan team observed the use of low-speed street 

designs in both residential and commercial areas that were 

especially conducive to walking and bicycling. For example, 

the city of Bristol, England, has implemented 20 mi/h 

(12 km/h) “home zones” in its new residential development. 

 6 A scan team member made a personal visit to Osnabrück, 

Germany, before the official scan trip. 

Figure 30. Bike symbols oriented to motorists turning at a

driveway in Berlin, Germany.

Figure 29. Dashed bike lane provides guidance through a wide 

intersection in Osnabrück, Germany.6

Figure 31. Dashed bike lane in Potsdam, Germany.
28 | Chapter 3: Engineering and Design Elements

Several cities in Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland also 

have implemented low-speed streets (20 to 30 km/h or 12 

to 19 mi/h) in both residential (figure 33) and commercial 

(figure 34) areas. The host countries have different criteria 

for applying low-speed street design, as well as different 

levels of traffic control devices on these low-speed streets. 

Several foreign hosts indicated that certain criteria should be 

met for these low-speed street designs to operate properly: 

1) relative speeds of the different modes should be similar, 

2) flows (volumes) of users should be similar, and 

3) “see and be seen” is a critical design element that 

encourages increased communication and interaction 

between modes.

In Bern, Switzerland, motor vehicle access to a low-speed 

street in a commercial area was controlled by retractable 

bollards. Authorized users (such as freight delivery personnel or store owners) swiped an access card across a security 

pad to retract the bollards and gain access (figure 35).

Figure 33. Residential street in Bern, Switzerland, with 

pedestrian priority posted with 20 km/h speed limit.

Figure 32. “Green wave” cycle track in Copenhagen, Denmark, 

on which traffic signals are synchronized to bicyclist speeds.

Figure 34. Pedestrian priority zone in commercial area of 

Winterthur, Switzerland.

Figure 35. Retractable bollards provide access to pedestrian streets 

for authorized users in Bern, Switzerland.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 29

Integration of Biking and Walking With 

Public Transit

The scan team observed close integration of bicycling and 

walking considerations with public transit (including intercity 

rail) that makes longer intermodal commutes by bike practical 

as well as safer and more convenient. These considerations 

include the following:

◗ A variety of bike parking solutions at stations, including 

plentiful and convenient bike racks, covered outdoor 

parking, and secure indoor parking (figure 36)

◗ Policies that permit bikes on trains and buses, even 

during peak times

◗ Low-cost or free short-term bike rental or sharing 

programs located in or near train or bus stations, with 

involvement in or ownership by the transit agency

◗ Channels or ramps on stairways that make it easier to 

use steps while pushing a bike (figure 37)

◗ Public taxis with quick-mount bike racks for passengers

Figure 37. Bike-friendly steps in a multilevel transit station in 

Lund, Sweden.

Figure 36. A variety of bike parking is provided at transit stations.

Outdoor parking next to train station (Lund, Sweden)

Three-level secure indoor parking (Bern, Switzerland)

Secure indoor parking (Lund, Sweden)
30 | 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 31

I

n the context of this report, education means informing 

road users about traffic regulations and safe and appropriate behavior. Many of the education programs discussed 

during the scanning study were for pedestrians and 

bicyclists, but motorist education was also mentioned. 

Traffic Safety Education for Children

Many of the foreign hosts had extensive traffic safety 

education programs for children. The programs involve 

participation from a wide variety of organizations. The 

most-often-mentioned program was a Children’s Traffic 

Club that provided ongoing, age-appropriate safety material 

to parents and children, as well as fun learning activities. 

For example, the Danish Road Safety Council operates a 

Children’s Traffic Club in Denmark.7 When they reach age 3, 

all Danish children receive an offer of membership to the 

club. About 30 percent of parents register their children for 

membership. Club members receive a traffic package 

including a training booklet and toys every 6 months until 

they reach age 61⁄2. The club has existed for more than 30 

years. Also, since 1994, road safety education has been 

mandatory in Denmark’s lower and secondary primary 

(elementary and middle) schools. Local discretion is used 

to determine how and when classes should take place. 

The United Kingdom has a similar Children’s Traffic Club8

modeled after successful programs in Norway and Sweden. 

The United Kingdom Children’s Traffic Club (figure 38) is 

designed to teach 3- and 4-year old children about road 

safety. In the United Kingdom, the voluntary program is 

offered by local road safety or public health authorities who 

wish to make the safety education material available in their 

area. The materials are offered free to parents or caregivers, 

and the typical participation rate is 60 percent in areas where 

it is offered. When children become members of the club, 

they receive a series of six books through the mail (one 

about every 3 months), as well as stickers, information about 

competitions, and a membership certificate. Additional safety 

 7See www.sikkertrafik.dk/10a20029.

 8See www.trafficclub.co.uk/.

education materials for home and group settings are also 

available through the United Kingdom Children’s Traffic Club. 

As part of Bristol’s Cycling City national demonstration, 

officials plan to offer the Bikeability bicycle safety program.9

Bikeability is a government-approved, nationally recognized 

bicycle safety training and education program that has been 

standardized and is maintained by the United Kingdom’s 

Cycle Training Safety Board. The Bikeability program is 

voluntary and consists of three levels:

◗ Level 1— For children up to age 9, it teaches basic skills 

in a playground environment.

◗ Level 2—For children aged 9 to 11, it teaches 

intermediate skills on low-volume streets.

◗ Level 3 —For children older than 11 and adults, it teaches 

advanced skills on all road types.

Also part of the Cycling City national demonstration, the city 

of Bristol offers the Bike It program to local schools. The Bike 

It program, developed by Sustrans (the United Kingdom’s 

leading sustainable transport charity) to educate and promote biking to school,10 is offered at numerous locations in 

the United Kingdom. The goal of Bike It is to create a procycling culture in schools that continues long after the Bike It 

officers have finished their work. The Bike It program is 

 9See www.bikeability.org.uk.

 10See www.sustrans.org.uk/what-we-do/bike-it.

Chapter 4|

Education Elements

Figure 38. Children’s Traffic Club Web site in the United Kingdom. 

Source: www.trafficclub.co.uk
32 | Chapter 4: Education Elements

intended to work directly with schools by helping schools 

make the case for cycling in school travel plans, supporting 

cycling champions in schools, and demonstrating that 

cycling is a popular choice among children and parents.

The city of Winterthur, Switzerland, uses a “traffic garden” 

(a landscaped, reduced-scale closed course that includes 

Figure 39. Aerial view of reduced-scale closed course for traffic 

safety education for children in Winterthur, Switzerland.

Figure 40. Closed-course traffic safety education for children in 

Winterthur, Switzerland.

Source: Presentation by Stefan Gerber, City of Winterthur, Switzerland

traffic signals, roundabouts, bike lanes at intersections, 

sidewalks, work zones, public benches, and other common 

traffic situations) to teach elementary school-age children 

to ride bikes safely in traffic (figures 39 and 40). In operation 

since 1978, the traffic training area is run by the city police 

department with plantings maintained by a local garden club. 

Transport for London has developed several road safety 

education campaigns specifically targeted to teenagers:

◗ Don’t die before you’ve lived.

◗ Don’t let your friendship die on the road.

◗ Look after your mates.

The campaigns are distributed though television and print 

media (posters, billboards, etc.) and typically feature a 

provocative, attention-grabbing image (figure 41). Transport 

for London staff use a fairly elaborate process for developing 

safety education campaigns (which are all components of the 

branded THINK! traffic safety campaign). They typically have a 

target road user group (e.g., teenagers, truck drivers, bicyclists, 

etc.) for each campaign that is based on recent crash 

statistics and trends. Private marketing companies are 

involved in the creative development, while Transport for 

London marketing staff ensures that the creative story fits 

with the overall road safety theme. After the campaign 

material has been released, Transport for London conducts 

followup studies to test target audience message recognition 

and understanding. In some cases, future releases of the 

same campaign may be refined to be more effective within 

certain demographic groups.

Traffic Safety Education for Adults

The scan team observed higher levels of bicycle helmet 

use than expected in the countries visited. Helmets were 

uniformly encouraged for children and adults. Most countries 

emphasized physical activity first and helmets second. Their 

rationale was that required helmet use discourages bicycling 

(physical activity), which could have a greater public health 

detriment than head injuries resulting from crashes. Bicycle 

helmet use was recognized not as a crash-prevention 

measure, but as the most effective countermeasure 

for preventing head injury from a crash.

Copenhagen and the neighboring city of Frederiksberg 

cooperate on traffic safety education campaigns (in Danish, 

Byens Trafikråd).11 In the past few years, these campaigns 

have included the following:

 11See www.byenstrafikraad.dk/.

Source: GOOGLE MAPS, HTTP://MAPS.GOOGLE.COM
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 33

◗ Providing free reflective vests and 

reflectors for children and adults

◗ City police providing free bicycle headlights to bicyclists without headlights

◗ Providing free bicycle helmets

◗ Educating bicyclists about blind 

spots when trucks turn right

◗ Educating bicyclists about riding in 

the “door zone” next to parked cars

Motorist Education and Awareness 

Programs

The United Kingdom appeared to have 

the most extensive motorist education and 

awareness programs among all the countries 

visited during the scanning study. The United 

Kingdom’s Department for Transport has a 

single unifying brand called THINK! for its 

road safety education program.12 The THINK! 

brand incorporates numerous focus areas 

targeted to improve safety for various road 

user groups, such as cyclists, pedestrians, 

children, teenage drivers, and motorcyclists. The most 

recent national pedestrian campaign, called Tales of the 

Road,13 includes an interactive Web site for children and 

other media (television, cinema, and online advertising). 

Transport for London has released several motorist awareness videos under the THINK! brand.14 The first campaign 

showed a moonwalking bear in the midst of two fourperson teams passing basketballs, with instructions to count 

the number of passes a particular team made. Most viewers 

were so intent on counting the number of basketball passes 

that they did not see the bear,15 a phenomenon called 

attention blindness. The campaign tagline is “It’s easy to 

miss something you’re not looking for: Look out for cyclists.” 

Subsequent videos from Transport for London have been 

modeled after the British genre of “Whodunit” murder 

mysteries.

Key Findings

Key findings related to education are as follows:

 12See www.dft.gov.uk/think/.

 13See talesoftheroad.direct.gov.uk.

 14See www.dothetest.co.uk/.

 15See www.youtube.com/watch?v=47LCLoidJh4.

◗ Many of the foreign hosts have pervasive and 

widespread traffic safety education programs for all 

children. The education programs start at an early age 

and some continue through the teenage years. These 

traffic safety programs involve participation from a wide 

variety of organizations, including schools, businesses, 

civic organizations, police, public health groups, and 

parks and recreation departments. For example, several 

countries had a Children’s Traffic Club program that 

provided ongoing, age-appropriate safety material to 

parents and children, as well as fun learning activities. 

Also, most pedestrian and bicyclist safety education 

programs were integrated into the overall traffic safety 

program.

◗ The use of a single brand appeared to be effective 

at connecting various traffic safety education efforts.

For example, the United Kingdom’s THINK! brand has 

several focus areas with a common theme. U.K. officials 

believe that the single brand helps the public identify all 

traffic safety issues (including pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety) as related and important.

Figure 41. Transport for London’s pedestrian road safety campaign for teenagers.

Source: Presentation by Nick Baker, Transport for London
34 | 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 35

Chapter 5|

Enforcement Elements

I

n the context of this report, enforcement 

means compelling all road users 

(motorists, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians) to obey traffic regulations. 

Enforcement actions are most often a 

monetary fine and, in some cases, restriction 

of certain privileges (such as driving).

The host countries seldom mentioned 

enforcement when discussing strategies 

to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

The specific reasons for this are unknown. 

Followup questions to the hosts often indicated their preference for nonpunitive strategies. For example, educational strategies such 

as improved driver training or child bicycling 

education were sometimes mentioned. 

In Winterthur, Switzerland, the city police 

department is actively engaged in childhood 

education for pedestrian, cycling, and general 

behavior on the road (depending on age 

group) (see Chapter 4), which provides 

legitimacy to this activity. In Switzerland, municipalities are required by law to educate children 

about traffic behavior. In Winterthur, the city council has 

appointed the city police department to perform this task. 

In other cases, the hosts indicated that they strive to design 

self-enforcing roads (i.e., good design invites right use) so 

that motorist speeding is difficult or uncomfortable. 

When enforcement was discussed, it was related mostly to 

motorist actions, such as speeding, running red lights, or not 

yielding at pedestrian crossings. Anecdotal observations by 

the scan team did indicate that photo enforcement of traffic 

signals and speed limits was common in most countries 

(figure 42). In London, several bus lanes and congestion 

charging zones were enforced using stationary camera 

systems. Buses in London have front-facing cameras that 

can be used to photograph and issue tickets to motorists 

who drive or park in bus lanes. In Sweden, there has 

been some discussion on using intelligent speed adaption 

(automatically limiting vehicle speeds based on the road) 

for local governments’ fleet vehicles.

Enforcement actions for pedestrians and bicyclists were 

mentioned less often than for motorists, and most related to 

bicyclists not observing traffic signals or stop signs. Anecdotal 

observations in most host cities indicated high levels of 

pedestrian and bicyclist compliance with traffic signals and 

other traffic control devices. In fact, several scan team members frequently commented on how orderly the traffic was 

compared to the typical U.S. experience. For example, pedestrians typically crossed with pedestrian signals at intersections, 

bicyclists obeyed traffic signals even when no crossing traffic 

was present, and motorists were courteous and attentive at 

intersections and other pedestrian crossings. The scan team 

did not see motorists encroaching on bike boxes or pedestrian 

crosswalks, or bicyclists encroaching on pedestrian crosswalks. 

The team observed that mobile phone and texting device use 

by motorists did not appear to be as common as it is in the 

United States. Motorists making right turns across bike lanes or 

cycle tracks used their turn signals and yielded to numerous 

through bicyclists before turning right.

Figure 42. Photo enforcement at a traffic signal in Bern, Switzerland.
36 | Chapter 5: Enforcement Elements

Key Findings

Key findings related to enforcement are as follows:

◗ The scan team observed the widespread use of 

photo enforcement for traffic signals and speed 

limits. Although photo enforcement is viewed primarily 

as a tool for improving motor vehicle safety, better 

motorist compliance with speed limits and traffic signals 

also improves pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Chapter 6|

Encouragement

I

n the context of this chapter, encouragement means 

promoting walking and cycling as a travel mode. 

Promotion of walking and cycling can take many forms. 

For example, it could include marketing the benefits, 

providing additional information, providing complimentary services, or providing incentives and certain facilities for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. In many cases, encouragement 

and promotional activities are viewed as the small details 

that can make a big difference in travel mode choice. Many 

of these small details can make walking and cycling easy 

and convenient. 

This chapter presents examples of encouragement 

and promotion of walking and cycling identified 

during the scanning study. The examples 

have been selected to present unique or 

different ideas from those activities not already 

commonly undertaken in the United States.

Route and Wayfinding Signs

Route and wayfinding signs were common 

in the cities visited during the scanning study. 

Several countries have national standards 

for bicycle route signing. For example, 

Switzerland has signing standards that include 

onroad and offroad biking, hiking, and inline 

skating (figure 43, left side). Germany also 

has national route signing standards, and the 

bicycle route signs the scan team observed 

included the distance to the destination 

(figure 43, right side). 

Route and Destination Planning

The Switzerland Mobility Foundation has 

partnered with transportation, tourism, 

and sport agencies to create a map-based 

route and destination planning tool on 

the Internet called SwitzerlandMobility 

(www.switzerlandmobility.ch). The map 

tool (figure 44) includes hiking, cycling, 

mountain biking, skating, canoeing, and 

rail, bus, and boat routes. The Swiss Federal Roads Office 

provides support to this activity, as do several other federal 

departments and regional and local municipalities. Several 

foreign hosts commented on the economic value of 

walking and biking, particularly for recreation and tourism.

Marketing Campaigns

Several host cities actively market and promote walking and 

bicycling as alternatives to driving. In Malmö, Sweden, the city 

promoted the use of bikes to replace short car trips (3 to 5 

km, or 2 to 3 mi). The campaign title was “Hälften av alla 

bilresor som görs i Malmö är löjligt korta,” or “Half of all car 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 37

Source:www.switzerlandmobility.ch

Figure 43. Route signs in Switzerland (left) and Germany (right).

Figure 44. National route and destination planning tool showing cycling routes 

in Switzerland. 
38 | Chapter 6: Encouragement

trips in Malmö are ridiculously short.” The campaign included 

several elements:

◗ General information through advertisements, brochures 

(e.g., “You won’t be ridiculous, will you?”), bike maps, 

and other giveaways

◗ Actual cyclists doing stationary pedaling in front of 

billboards

◗ Highly visible cyclists (wearing fluorescent-orange 

vests and silver helmets) looping through rush-hour 

traffic giving out information to motorists stopped 

for traffic signals

◗ A placard on fleet bicycles used by municipal staff 

during work hours

◗ An annual “confession” contest in which participants 

submit their most “ridiculously short” car trips (figure 45)

The “ridiculous car trips” campaign is considered effective, and 

Malmö plans to repeat the campaign once a year. Surveys 

from the initial campaign (May 2007) indicated that 50 

percent of city residents recognized the events and 9 percent 

of survey respondents now use their cars less frequently. 

When the scan team visited Malmö in May 2009 (2 years 

after the initial campaign), the city had updated its marketing 

material from “Half of all car trips . . .” to “38 percent of all car 

trips . . .” (figure 46), a visible indication that the city was 

making progress in shifting short trips away from cars. 

To complement this “ridiculous car trips” campaign, Malmö 

has initiated a Friendly Way to School program (similar to 

Safe Routes to School). Before the campaign, about 80 

percent of parents drove their children to elementary 

school, even though 78 percent live within 1 km (0.6 mi) 

of the school. After the campaign, the share of students 

being driven dropped to about 50 percent. 

Various groups in Copenhagen are actively marketing and 

promoting cycling as a sustainable means of transport 

Figure 45. Incentives to reduce short car trips in Malmö, Sweden.

Figure 46. Updated promotional banners to reduce “ridiculously 

short” car trips in Malmö, Sweden.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 39

and a lifestyle choice (figure 47). In a 2015 visioning 

document,16 one of four major themes is for Copenhagen 

to be the “world’s best city for cycles.” The Copenhagen 

tourism and visitor’s bureau markets cycling, featuring 

it prominently on the front page of its Web site at 

www.visitcopenhagen.com.

 16Eco-Metropole: Our Vision for Copenhagen 2015.

Municipality of Copenhagen, ISBN 978-87-7072-000-7, 2007.

Shared and Rental Bike Programs

Shared and rental bike programs also were common in many 

of the host countries. For example, Malmö, Sweden, recently 

purchased a fleet of bikes for use by city employees during 

working hours (figure 48). Each bicycle features a placard 

about the city’s “ridiculously short trips” campaign. In addition 

to secure bike parking, the VeloStation in Bern, Switzerland’s, 

main train station also provides free bike rentals for up to 4 

hours. VeloStation bikes may be used longer than 4 hours for Source: Presentation by Steffen Rasmussen, City of Copenhagen, Denmark

Figure 48. City fleet bicycles in Malmö, Sweden.

Figure 47. Marketing material for cycling in Copenhagen, Denmark. 
40 | Chapter 6: Encouragement

a nominal rental fee. In Germany, the national railway 

company Deutsche Bahn (DB) provides rental bikes (figure 

49) in inner-city areas of Berlin, Cologne, Frankfurt, Karlsruhe, 

Munich, and Stuttgart. For the German DB rental bikes, users 

can register in advance on the Internet or on the spot using 

a cell phone. In several German cities, the first 30 minutes 

of bicycle use is free.

Free Public-Use Bikes (City Bikes)

The city of Copenhagen has distributed about 2,000 free 

public-use bikes (also called “city bikes”) at 100 designated 

bike racks throughout the inner-city area (figure 50). A small 

deposit (a Danish 20-kroner coin, about US$4) is required to 

unlock the Copenhagen city bike, and the deposit is returned 

once the bike is locked to a designated rack. A central repair 

shop and four mobile repair units keep the city bikes in 

working order. A tourist map of city sights is permanently 

affixed to the bike handlebars because the Copenhagen city 

bikes are popular among tourists. The city bike program is 

sponsored largely by advertising revenue.

Free Hotel Guest Use Bikes

Several hotels the scan team stayed at featured free 

bicycles for guest use stationed at the entry door (e.g., 

Copenhagen, Bern). This trend is common across Europe 

as hotels compete on amenities related to sustainability 

and energy conservation.17 Increasingly, the dilemma is 

that guests’ bicycle demand outstrips availability. Many 

hotels also provide bicycle parking for guests who bring 

their own bicycles.

 17 See “Europe on Two Borrowed Wheels,” New York Times,

May 3, 2009, page 6.

Utility Bicycle Designs

Bicycles appeared in all shapes and sizes in the cities the 

scan team visited, making it possible for people to bicycle in 

normal clothing and conveniently carry children, cargo, and 

more (see figure 51). Moreover, bicycles typically included 

kickstands, making bicycle parking possible virtually anywhere, and easy-to-use onboard wheel locks to deter theft. 

The range of bicycle types appeared to be in keeping with 

the range of transportation options available in the cities 

visited, some of which were predominantly for tourist use. 

Very young children were seen practicing their balancing 

and bike-riding skills on training bicycles without pedals.

Bicycle Service Facilities

Several cities provided air pumps for tires at locations with 

high levels of bike traffic. Along one of its bicycle demonstration routes, the city of Malmö, Sweden, installed an air pump 

and several bike tools secured to a pole (figure 52, see page 

42). This location also featured a large route map, making it 

a convenient one-stop opportunity for cyclists.

Bicycle Parking

Bicycle parking facilities were more prevalent in the cities 

the scan team visited than in most U.S. cities. The city of 

Winterthur, Switzerland, provided two-level bicycle parking 

near an open-air public market to encourage residents and 

visitors to bicycle there. Bicycles sold in Europe tend to be 

more suitable for daily transportation use, offering kickstands 

to make it easy to park almost anywhere and onboard wheel 

locks to deter theft without necessitating permanent bicycle 

parking facilities. Government officials provided several types 

of covered bicycle parking outside the city office building in 

Malmö, Sweden. In Berlin, city officials installed bicycle racks 

Figure 49. Rental bike in Berlin, Germany. Figure 50. Free public-use “city bikes” in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 41

in what had been car parking spaces in front of the federal 

government building. Officials in Potsdam, Germany, 

provided covered parking outside the train station. (See 

Chapter 3 for information on bicycle parking at train stations.) 

A benefit of dedicating more space for public use (such as 

providing wider sidewalks in front of stores and public 

buildings or creating public plazas) is the opportunity 

to provide abundant, convenient bicycle parking.

Bike Barometers

Bike barometers are automatic counters that display a 

subtotal of daily and year-to-date bicyclists passing a certain 

point (figure 53, see page 42). Several host cities placed 

automatic counters in highly visible areas to demonstrate 

the current level of bicycling and promote additional use. 

In several cases, an air pump for bike tires was also provided 

next to the automatic bike counter. These bike barometers 

were a point of pride for city staff and residents and a 

reminder that what gets counted counts.

Public Spaces and Pedestrian Service Facilities

A consideration relevant to a culture of encouragement is 

the prevalence of public gathering places, sidewalk cafes, 

and public toilets. It was not unusual to see crowds of people 

of all ages enjoying sunshine and others’ company on park 

benches, along waterways, and under café umbrellas. There 

are destinations for people to walk and bicycle to, their needs 

are met once they arrive, and they are not rushed to do their 

business and move on. A less hurried pace allows people to 

enjoy the vibrant use of public spaces.

Key Findings

The key findings on encouragement and promotion of 

walking and cycling are as follows:

◗ Many of the foreign hosts use promotional 

programs and activities to encourage and enable 

more walking and biking. These encouragement 

Figure 51. Multifunctional bicycles were seen in all shapes and sizes.
activities are considered a tool to meet mode share goals 

as well as increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Many 

foreign hosts viewed higher levels of walking and biking 

as a way to improve safety (the “safety in numbers” 

effect). Where walking and bicycling are considered the 

norm, a certain amount of encouragement happens 

inherently, by example. Common examples of promotional programs and activities include the following:

z Well-marked routes with wayfinding signs and 

printed maps

z Web-based biking and walking route planning and 

maps, including extensive countryside pathways 

inviting tourists and other occasional users

z Well-maintained shared-bike programs for public 

agencies, private companies, or the general public

z Free or very low cost public-use bicycles that the city 

or transit agency maintains in good working order

z Routine provision of quality bike racks at convenient 

locations, made possible in part because of the 

prevalence of public space

z Employer-sponsored programs (bike-to-work 

incentives)

z Marketing campaigns to reduce or shift short car trips

z Wellness and physical activity programs jointly 

sponsored by public health and transportation 

agencies

z Personalized travel planning (like the Portland, OR, 

-based Smart Trips program, www.walkinginfo.org/

library/details.cfm?id=3961)

◗ Several cities provided a showcase counter in a 

highly visible location to demonstrate daily and 

annual bicycle use. Although this tool was noted to 

yield varying and, in some cases, inaccurate results, 

it was a point of pride and a reminder that what 

gets counted counts.

42 | Chapter 6: Encouragement

Figure 52. Bicycle tire air pump (top, “luft” is Swedish for “air”) 

and tools (bottom) provided at popular bicyclist locations

in Malmö, Sweden.

Figure 53. Bike counter (daily and year-to-date subtotals) and air 

pump in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 43

Chapter 7|

Evaluation

I

n the context of this chapter, evaluation is the act 

of examining results to ensure that goals are met. 

Evaluation can be part of a regular monitoring process 

that measures progress toward goals such as biking and 

walking mode share or safety. For example, many of the 

host countries conducted pedestrian and bicyclist counts or 

travel surveys to determine how biking and walking levels are 

changing as programs are implemented. Evaluation can also 

take the form of focused studies on innovative practices, 

designs, or programs. Many host countries (and even the 

United States) routinely evaluate new or innovative intersection designs and traffic control devices. This chapter includes 

several examples of evaluation approaches the scan team 

identified during the scanning study.

Berlin, Germany

Several of the foreign hosts have increased their monitoring 

of walking and cycling levels in recent years, and have also 

backcasted historical estimates based on travel surveys and 

other available data. For example, Berlin has estimates of bicycle 

use since 1951, even though its first year-round bicycle traffic 

count was performed in 2001 (figure 54). This technique takes 

advantage of newer data collection activities and helps put 

recent limited-count data into the proper historical perspective.

Copenhagen, Denmark

The city of Copenhagen has published a Bicycle Account 

every 2 years since 1995 that provides “an assessment of 

the city’s record when it comes to cycling.” The most recent 

edition is the 2006 Bicycle Account,18 which contains 

information on these areas:

◗ Cyclists’ satisfaction ratings on perceived safety, 

facilities, and other categories

 18Available at www.vejpark2.kk.dk/publikationer/pdf/464_

Cykelregnskab_UK.%202006.pdf.

Source: Presentation by Burkhard Horn, Berlin, Germany

Figure 54. Bicycling trends in Berlin, 1951–2008.

(Note: Line that starts in 2001 indicates start of all-year bicycle traffic counts.) 

Bicycle use in Berlin since 1951

Base year 2001=100% (first all-year bicycle traffic counted in Berlin)

220%

200%

180%

160%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

195119521953195419551956

1957

19581959

1960

1961

19621963196419651966

1967

19681969

1970197119721973197419751976197719781979

1980

1981

19821983198419851986

1987

198819891990

1991

19921993199419951996

1997

19981999

2000

2001

20022003200420052006

2007

2008

81%

210%

129%

17%
44 | Chapter 7: Evaluation

◗ Key figures (total kilometers cycled, total facility extent, 

parking spaces, etc.) 

◗ Cycle policy targets:

z Proportion who cycle to work (percent)

z Cyclist risk (serious casualty per million km cycled)

z Cyclist sense of safety (percent)

z Cyclist travel speed (km/h)

z Cycling comfort (unsatisfactory surface in percent)

The Bicycle Account also includes information about funding 

levels, new initiatives, public health benefits, and brief results 

from recent safety evaluations. This biennial report is brief, 

has a professional layout with colorful pictures, and appears 

to be oriented to nontechnical audiences. Samples of key 

statistics are shown in figure 55.

London, United Kingdom

Transport for London, the regional transport authority for 

London, has been monitoring pedestrian and bicyclist levels 

for several years, using both manual and automated 

counting systems. Manual bicycle counts have been 

performed at numerous locations at varying frequencies 

since 1972. Since 2001, central cordon bicycle counts have 

been performed every year. Bike counts across several 

Thames River bridges are now performed four times per 

year (figure 56, top). Bicycle counts on parts of the network 

are estimated from motor vehicle counts. Transport for 

London also has 96 locations at which bicyclist counts 

are from automatic counters (figure 56, bottom).

Fewer locations are routinely counted for pedestrians. Several 

Thames River bridges are manually counted on a quarterly 

basis, and one-time pedestrian counts are conducted for 

special studies. Transport for London recently installed automatic counters for pedestrians at 54 sites, but experience with 

these automatic pedestrian counters has been limited to date. 

The pedestrian and bicyclist counts are used in a variety 

of agency applications, including network planning, 

safety analyses, performance reporting, and public 

service announcements.

Figure 55. Key statistics from Copenhagen’s 2006 Bicycle Account.

Source: Presentation by Lee Abbott, Transport for London
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 45

Lund, Sweden

The city of Lund, Sweden, has developed a sustainable 

long-range transportation plan for 2030 called LundaMaTs. 

The plan addresses all modes of transport and sets 2013 

and 2030 targets for specific areas of the plan. For example, 

the walking and cycling goals include facility extent, walking 

and cycling levels, accessibility, perception of safety, and 

measured safety (figure 57).

Lund also tracks walking and cycling levels and safety on 

an annual basis. For example, figure 58 (see next page) 

shows bicycle (first series), car (second series), and public 

transport (third series) usage levels per capita from 2000 

through 2007. Similarly, figure 59 (see next page) shows 

bicyclist-involved crash index trends from 1996 through 

2008. The crash index is a weighted combination of 

fatal and injury crashes, which is then normalized by 

the amount of bicycle travel (bicycle-kilometers of

travel per year).

Charts and statistics like these were used by several 

of the foreign hosts to convey basic trend information, 

justify expended funds, or lobby for additional 

funding.

Figure 56. Manual (top) and automatic (bottom) bicyclist 

counts in London. 

Source: Presentation by Anna Karlsson, City of Lund, S

weden

Figure 57. Short- and long-range walking and cycling targets in Lund, Sweden.

Target Target 2013 Target 2030

The length of walkways and cycleways will increase 10% by 2013 and 30% by 2030. +10% +30%

The proportion of safe crossings for pedestrians and cyclists will be 30% by 2013 and 100% by 2030. +30% +100%

Walking trips per resident will increase. Increase Increase

Cycling trips per resident will increase 5% by 2013 and 10% by 2030. +5% +10%

Accessibility for the disabled, children and elderly will increase. Increase Increase

The proportion of people who perceive the transport environment as unsafe will decrease. Decrease Decrease

The number of people killed or seriously injured in the traffic environment will decrease 25% by 2013 

and 50% by 2030 (covers both municipal and national road networks). -25% -50%
46 | Chapter 7: Evaluation

Figure 59. Bicyclist-involved crash index trends in Lund, Sweden. 

Source: Presentation by Anna Karlsson, City of Lund, S

weden

Figure 58. Bicycle, car, and public transport usage trends in Lund, Sweden.

Source: Presentation by Anna Karlsson, City of Lund, S

weden
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 47

Potsdam, Germany

In some host cities, a systematic citywide process for 

counting walking and cycling levels was not in place, but 

available data are used. For example, the city of Potsdam 

reports a citywide mode share statistic from a household 

travel survey (figure 60), but has also tracked bicycle counts 

at a few key locations. Figure 61 shows 6-hour bicyclist 

counts over a main bridge (Lange Brücke) into the 

Potsdam city center from 1994 through 2006. 

Safety Evaluation Research

In addition to the regular monitoring of walking and cycling 

levels and crashes, many host countries also conduct safety 

evaluation research on innovative designs, practices, and 

traffic control devices. A few of the most relevant evaluation 

studies are summarized in this section. 

Additional information on safety evaluation 

research is available in several FHWA 

reports.19

Swedish researchers have studied the 

relative pedestrian risk at pedestrian crossings and discovered that, after adjusting for 

exposure, the crash rates at marked crosswalks were about twice as high as the crash 

rates at unmarked crossings (figure 62, see 

next page).20 This research finding generally 

corresponds with the FHWA study of marked 

and unmarked crosswalks.21 The recommendation from this study was also similar to the 

FHWA study recommendations: Additional 

countermeasures are needed to improve 

the safety of marked crosswalks on wider 

roads with higher traffic speeds. After further 

studies in the past two decades, Swedish 

research has concluded that a raised 

crossing (with specific vertical differentials) 

is most effective at improving safety at 

unsignalized marked crosswalks.

At the request of the municipality of 

Copenhagen, Trafitec (a Danish consulting 

firm) conducted a comprehensive study 

to examine the effects that bicycle facilities 

in Copenhagen have on road safety, traffic 

volumes, and perceived risk.22 The study 

found that the installation of cycle tracks 

resulted in an 18 to 20 percent increase 

in bicyclist traffic, but a 9 to 10 percent 

increase in bike-related crashes. The installation of bike 

lanes resulted in a 5 to 7 percent increase in bicyclist traffic, 

but a 5 to 15 percent increase in bike-related crashes. The 

number of sites included in the study appears to be limited, 

 19In particular, see A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in 

the United States and Abroad at www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/

pubs/03042/index.htm.

 20Ekman, Lars. Fotgängares Risker På Markerat Övergångsställe 

Jämfört Med Andra Korsningspunkter. Bulletin 76, University of 

Lund, 1988.

 21Zegeer et al. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked 

Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and 

Recommended Guidelines. FHWA–HRT–04–100, Federal 

Highway Administration, August 2005.

 22Jensen, Søren Underlien and Rosenkilde, Claus, and Jensen, 

Niels. Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in 

Copenhagen. 9 pages, no date.

Figure 60. Modal share trends in Potsdam, Germany, 1977–2003. 

Figure 61. Six-hour bicyclist counts on a major bridge in 

Potsdam, Germany, 1994–2006. 

Source: Presentation by Axel Dörrie, City of Potsdam, Germany
and it also appears that the crash analysis did not normalize 

for cyclist exposure. The full evaluation report is available 

in Danish only at www.trafitec.dk/publika.htm. The results 

of this study were also presented at the Transportation 

Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting in January 2008 

by Søren Underlien Jensen.23

Jensen has also published a before-and-after analysis of 

blue bike crossings in the U.S. journal Accident Analysis and 

Prevention.24 This study found that the safety effect depends 

on the number of blue bike crossings at the intersection. 

One blue bike crossing reduces the number of intersection 

crashes by 10 percent. Marking two and four blue bike 

crossings increases the number of crashes by 23 percent 

and 60 percent, respectively.

These findings on the safety of cycle tracks and blue bike 

crossings are acknowledged in Copenhagen’s 2006 Bicycle 

Account. That report indicates that the city will experiment 

with other approaches, including intersection designs that 

bring bicyclists and motorists physically closer together at 

intersections. One promising solution includes a cycle track 

that transitions to an onstreet bike lane at the intersection, with 

the motor vehicle stop line set back from the bicyclist stop line.

 23Jensen, Søren Underlien. Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: A BeforeAfter Study. Presented at the TRB Annual Meeting, January 2008.

 24Jensen, Søren Underlien. “Safety Effects of Blue Cycle Crossings: 

A Before-After Study.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 

2008, pp. 742-750.

The SUNflower project25,26 (http://sunflower.swov.nl/) is a 

collaboration among the primary road safety research institutes 

in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands 

(Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, Transport 

Research Laboratory, and Institute for Road Safety Research, 

respectively). The traffic safety experience of these three 

countries is recognized as among the best in the European 

Union, yet the traffic crash injuries and fatalities were still 

deemed unacceptably high. A comparative study completed 

in 2002 assessed the safety strategies of the original three 

SUN countries. Study results are used to make continued 

progress in developing safety programs in the three countries. 

A followup to the initial SUNflower report, SUNflower+6,27, 28

was completed in 2005 and added six countries to the road 

safety research collaboration: the Czech Republic, Hungary, 

Slovenia, Greece, Portugal, and Spain and Catalonia. Pedestrian 

and bicyclist safety was included in the safety research topics.

Key Findings

Key findings on evaluation are as follows:

◗ Many of the foreign hosts provide regular 

performance reports on pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety and mobility. These performance reports 

measure the agency’s progress toward stated goals and 

outcomes and are used to refine policies and strategies 

to ensure that goals are met. For example, the city of 

Copenhagen publishes a Bicycle Account every 2 years 

that reports on several measures, such as cyclist mode 

split, safety, and perceived comfort and safety. The most 

common pedestrian and bicyclist performance measures 

were usage (e.g., counts, mode share) and safety 

(e.g., fatalities and serious injuries), which were 

 25SUNFlower: A comparative study of the development of road 

safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

Report 976, ISBN 90-801008-9-7, SWOV, Leidschendam, 2002.

 26Wegman, F.C.M. Into a higher gear; Building on SUNflower: 

a comparative study of Europe’s three safest countries: Sweden, 

the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Report R-2004-3 

(Dutch with English summary), SWOV, 2004.

 27 Wegman, Fred, Vojtech Eksler, Simon Hayes, David Lynam, 

Peter Morsink, and Siem Oppe. SUNflower+6, A comparative study 

of the development of road safety in the SUNFLower+6 countries: 

Final Report. Report 976, ISBN 978-90-807958-5-3, SWOV Institute 

for Road Safety Research, 2005.

 2 8Morsink, Peter, Siem Oppe, Martine Reurings, and Fred 

Wegman. SUNflower+6, Development and application of a 

footprint methodology for the SUNflower+6 countries. ISBN 

978-90-807958-6-0, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, 

2005.

48 | Chapter 7: Evaluation

Figure 62. Swedish research on relative risk at marked, signalized, 

and unmarked pedestrian crossings.

Source: Presentation by Lars Ekman, Ramboll
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 49

Chapter 8|

Summary of Findings and

Implementation Plan

typically reported on an annual basis.

T

his chapter provides a summary of the findings 

from the 2009 scanning study and compares 

these findings to the previous pedestrian and 

bicyclist scanning study conducted in 1993. 

The chapter also provides recommendations 

for implementing these findings.

Summary of Findings

◗ Numerous policies and approaches contribute 

to higher rates of pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

improvements and higher walking and biking mode 

splits in the host countries. From all of the information that the scan team gathered and everything it 

observed, it appears that higher levels of walking and 

biking safety and mobility are due to a deliberate 

combination of policies, approaches, and influences. 

These policies and approaches are discussed in 

detail in the report.

◗ Many of the foreign hosts have established an urban 

street user hierarchy that gives the highest priority 

to walking, biking, and public transit. The street user 

hierarchy has been developed to support a range of 

public policy goals, such as livability, sustainability, public 

health, climate change, and congestion management. 

The hierarchy guides decisions on transportation policy, 

planning, design, operations, and maintenance. 

◗ “Safety in numbers” (also called “awareness in 

numbers”) is a clear motivator behind the promotion of walking and bicycling as a safety improvement strategy. Most host countries indicated that they 

promoted walking and bicycling for a variety of reasons 

(lower overall transportation delivery cost, sustainability, 

space and energy efficiency, health and wellness, etc.), 

and improved safety was often mentioned as one of 

the outcomes of higher levels of walking and biking. 

Their rationale is that when pedestrians and bicyclists 

are a common element in the street environment, 

motorists expect their presence and take the necessary 

precautions at potential conflict points, such as when 

a motorist turns right across a through bicycle lane.

◗ The scan team observed several innovative traffic 

signal features and design practices that have the 

potential to improve pedestrian safety in the United 

States. Several examples are discussed in detail in 

the report.

◗ The scan team observed several approaches and 

design practices that could be used to improve 

bicyclist safety in the United States. Several examples 

are discussed in detail in the report.

◗ The scan team observed the use of low-speed 

street designs in both residential and commercial 

areas that were especially conducive to walking and 

bicycling. However, several foreign hosts indicated that 

certain conditions should be met for these low-speed 

street designs to operate properly: 1) speeds of the 

different modes should be similar, 2) flows (volumes) 

of users should be similar, and 3) “see and be seen” 

is a critical design element.

◗ The scan team observed close integration of 

bicycling and walking considerations with public 

transit (including intercity rail) that makes longer 

intermodal commutes by bike practical as well as 

safer and more convenient. Several examples are 

discussed in detail in the report.

◗ Many of the foreign hosts have pervasive and 

widespread traffic safety education programs for 

children. The education programs start at an early age 

and some continue through the teenage years. These 

traffic safety programs involve participation from a wide 

variety of organizations, including schools, businesses, 
50 | Chapter 8: Summary of Findings and Implementation Plan

civic organizations, police, public health groups, and 

parks and recreation departments.

◗ Bicycle helmet use is encouraged, but not required 

by law. The scan team found higher levels of bicycle 

helmet use than expected in the countries visited. 

Helmets were uniformly encouraged for children and 

adults. Most countries emphasized physical activity first 

and helmets second. Their rationale was that required 

helmet use discourages bicycling (physical activity), 

which could have a greater public health detriment 

than head injuries due to crashes.

◗ The scan team observed the widespread use of 

photo enforcement for traffic signals and speed 

limits. Although photo enforcement is viewed primarily 

as a tool for improving motor vehicle safety, better 

motorist compliance with speed limits and traffic 

signals also improves pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

◗ Many of the foreign hosts use promotional 

programs and activities to encourage and enable 

more walking and biking. These encouragement 

activities are seen as a tool to meet modal share goals 

as well as increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Many 

foreign hosts viewed higher levels of walking and biking 

as a way to improve safety (the “safety in numbers” 

effect). Several examples are discussed in detail in 

the report.

◗ Many of the foreign hosts provide regular performance reports on pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

and mobility. These performance reports measure the 

agency’s progress toward stated goals and outcomes, and 

are used to refine policies and strategies to ensure that 

goals are met. The most common pedestrian and bicyclist 

performance measures were usage (e.g., counts, mode 

share) and safety (e.g., fatalities and serious injuries), 

which were typically reported on an annual basis.

Implementation Plan

Based on the findings summarized in this report, the 

scan team has developed the following implementation 

recommendations. 

Policy

◗ Encourage transportation policy (at national, State, 

and local levels) that addresses the safety and 

mobility of walking, biking, and other nonmotorized 

modes so these modes have the highest priority in 

the road user hierarchy. This hierarchy, when integrated with public transit, simultaneously addresses 

numerous other public policy goals, such 

as livability, sustainability, public health, climate change, 

and congestion management. To implement this policy, 

establish specific and measurable outcomes with 

performance targets, including usage and safety 

experience (see the “Evaluation” recommendation). 

Specific near-term actions include the following: 

z Revising, strengthening, and publicizing the U.S. DOT 

policy statement Accommodating Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach.

z Conducting a survey of domestic and international best 

practices on policies that facilitate safety and increased 

rates of walking and bicycling. Such policies should be 

examined at Federal, State, and local levels. Examples 

include Complete Streets policies in the United States, 

the national bicycling plan for Germany, the United 

Kingdom Cycling City program, and Swiss legislation 

on human-powered mobility. 

z Developing a national strategy to improve education 

for transportation professionals on walking and 

bicycling design and planning. 

z Completing a new National Bicycling and Walking 

Study that sets new mode share and safety targets 

for walking and bicycling.

Engineering

◗ Evaluate and consider implementation of innovative 

signal features and geometric designs to improve 

pedestrian safety at street crossings. Examples of 

pedestrian features that can be implemented now 

are as follows:

z Raised crosswalks at pedestrian crossings (applied at 

midblock and roundabouts)

z Passive detection of pedestrians in waiting areas and 

crosswalks to extend or cancel the pedestrian phase

z Accessible pedestrian signals with confirmation lighting

z Crossing islands at pedestrian crossings, even on 

narrow roadway widths

z Partial crossings at wide signalized intersections with 

wide medians (note that additional push buttons and 

pedestrian signals will be required)

Examples of pedestrian features that could be implemented in the short term with appropriate evaluation 

are as follows:

z Near-side pedestrian signal heads that encourage 

viewing oncoming traffic

z Passive detection of pedestrians in waiting areas and 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 51

crosswalks to truncate the pedestrian phase

◗ Evaluate and consider implementation of innovative strategies to improve bicyclist safety. Examples 

of bicyclist features that can be implemented now are 

as follows:

z Convex mirrors

z Right-turn-on-red car restrictions

z Advance stop lines for bicyclists

z Continuation of bike lanes up to intersections

z Bike lanes between traffic lanes

z Shared bike lanes and right-turn lanes

z Bike routes on lower volume parallel roadways

z Contraflow bicycle lanes

z Path user divisions

z Dashed bike lanes through intersections

z Rotated or longitudinal bicycle symbols at driveways

Examples of bicyclist features that would likely require 

evaluation are as follows:

z Cycle tracks

z Accommodating two-stage left turns at signalized 

intersections

z Dashed bicycle lanes on narrow roadways

z Railing separating pedestrians and bicycles at 

intersections

z Colored lanes at conflict points

z Reserving yellow for bicycle and pedestrian pavement 

markings

◗ Evaluate the applicability of lower speed street 

designs in residential and commercial zones. The 

evaluation should address the differences in application 

between residential and commercial areas, and should 

more clearly define implementation issues and application criteria for the design of low-speed streets in the 

United States that are practical, safe, and efficient for 

all road users.

◗ Develop guidance on best practices for integrating 

bicycle and pedestrian considerations into public 

transit, including intercity rail. These considerations 

include permitted times of bike boarding, bike parking, 

bikes on trains and buses, and bike sharing (e.g., city 

bike) programs. Two existing documents may partially 

address this need: Transit Cooperative Research 

Program Synthesis 62–Integration of Bicycles and 

Transit (2005) and Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit 

Agencies (FHWA-SA-07-017). Based on a review of 

these documents, a best-practices guide may be 

desirable that includes any strategies observed during 

the scan that were not part of the two reports. Once a 

suitable guide has been identified or developed, Web 

conferences and other training should be provided 

to transportation and transit engineers and planners.

Education

◗ Institutionalize ongoing traffic safety education that 

starts at an early age, including knowledge and 

skill-based learning. Safety education programs can 

be multifaceted and include a variety of agencies and 

organizations for optimal delivery. To accomplish this, 

a national set of bicycle and pedestrian education 

standards and curriculum should be developed that 

establishes the minimum amount of information to 

be included and at what ages. The curriculum should 

incorporate practical applications of this safety information in safe settings such as a mock pedestrian crossing 

or the traffic garden concept.

◗ Unify all traffic safety campaigns (including bicycle 

and pedestrian safety) under a single national brand.

For example, the United Kingdom’s Department for 

Transport has developed a road safety program called 

THINK! that includes educational materials for numerous 

safety focus areas. To accomplish this, the U.S. DOT 

should develop a single brand and require that it be 

included on all highway safety educational and communication materials it produces. U.S. DOT highway safety 

materials are disseminated through a wide number of 

partners, including national associations, State and local 

governments, law enforcement agencies, medical 

organizations, public health departments, vehicle 

manufacturers, and insurance companies.

Enforcement

◗ Promote the use of photo enforcement as a tool 

to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. FHWA 

and NHTSA already promote photo enforcement, and 

their Web sites (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/index.cfm

and http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt) have 

extensive information on implementing speed 

and red-light-running campaigns. 

Encouragement

◗ Develop and implement programs that encourage 

and enable regular walking and biking. Examples 

of these strategies include the following:

z Web-based route planning

z Walking and biking maps

z Social marketing campaigns
z Shared bike programs for the public or municipal 

employees

Evaluation

◗ Develop and implement a performance monitoring 

and reporting program that annually measures 

progress toward stated goals and outcomes. Key 

performance measures are usage and safety experience. 

Other measures include pedestrian and bicyclist facility 

condition and extent (e.g., mileage). Existing count and 

safety evaluation efforts (Alliance for Biking and Walking’s Bicycling and Walking in the U.S. Benchmarking 

Report, Alta/Institute of Transportation Engineers 

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation 

Program, FHWA’s National Bicycling and Walking Study) 

should be better coordinated and unified. National 

guidance should be given on a consistent format and 

a sampling strategy to develop national estimates. 

Additionally, the 1994 National Bicycling and Walking 

Study should be updated to reflect current conditions 

and renew or reestablish national goals for bicycling 

and walking safety and usage.

52 | Chapter 8: Summary of Findings and Implementation Plan
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 53

APPENDIX A|

Amplifying Questions

I

n 2007, there were 4,654 pedestrian and 698 bicyclist 

deaths in the United States, accounting for 13 percent 

of all U.S. highway fatalities. The Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Office of Safety has established pedestrian and bicyclist safety as one of its top 

priorities. Two other priorities, intersection safety and speed 

management, are issues that also significantly affect 

pedestrians and bicyclists. The American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), a 

member association of State transportation departments, 

has identified two of the top 10 goals in its Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan as “making walking and street 

crossing safer” and “ensuring safer bicycle travel.”

FHWA has launched two new programs targeted at increasing pedestrian and bicyclist travel and improving safety. Safe 

Routes to School is a $612 million national program with 

the majority of funds devoted to infrastructure improvements. The Nonmotorized Pilot Program, which provides 

$100 million to four communities to improve bicycling and 

walking facilities, aims to evaluate how improved walking 

and biking facilities can carry a significant portion of the 

urban transportation load.

It has become increasingly important to both FHWA and 

AASHTO to improve nonmotorist safety and mobility. The 

purpose of this scanning study is to visit countries that are 

leaders in innovation for pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

policies and infrastructure. The following are specific 

topics of interest:

◗ Improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety —Approaches 

(engineering, education, and enforcement) that have 

been successful in improving pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety. These approaches can include both infrastructure 

and policy. 

◗ Safe routes to school programs —Approaches and 

policies for improving safety for child pedestrians and 

bicyclists, especially those that support programs like 

Safe Routes to School.

◗ Monitoring usage levels and exposure —Quantitative 

methods of monitoring pedestrian and bicyclist usage 

levels (for example, counts and surveys) and exposure 

to crashes.

◗ Safety research and evaluation —Recently completed 

or ongoing research and collaboration opportunities in 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Where possible and appropriate, the panel is interested in site 

visits (for example, walking and bicycling tours) to directly 

observe pedestrian and bicyclist facilities and their operation.

Topic 1:

Improving Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

Describe approaches (engineering, education, and enforcement) that have been successful in improving pedestrian 

and bicyclist safety. These approaches can include both 

infrastructure and policy. 

1.What are your pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and crash 

rates nationwide? By metropolitan area? In rural areas? 

Please elaborate on trends and patterns.

2.What are the most common types of pedestrian and 

bicyclist crashes in your country, region, or city? 

What is being done to address these types of problems?

3.What safety countermeasures are most useful in 

situations in which the volume of bicyclists and 

pedestrians is lower? 

Engineering

4.Describe the typical ways pedestrian and bicyclist 

infrastructure is developed. For example, does transport 

policy explicitly require the accommodation of all modes? 

Are there objective criteria or warrants to determine 

which facilities will be provided or improved?

5.Describe the typical funding practices for pedestrian and 

bicyclist infrastructure and programs. Are pedestrian 

and bicycle safety improvements funded as part of road 

projects or special safety enhancement programs?

6.What processes or procedures are used to identify safety 

problems? For example, are safety audits, crash analyses, 

or other objective criteria used on a regular basis?

7.Are design standards developed at the national level or 

locally? If national, can they be modified by local agencies 

based on conditions? What is that modification process?
8.Describe typical design practices and standards for 

pedestrian and bicyclist facilities. For bicyclists, is there 

a philosophy of separation from motor vehicle traffic, 

or does it depend on the context (urban versus rural)? 

For example, do you have guidelines on maximum 

auto speed or roadway characteristics that determine 

when to provide onstreet versus separated bicycle 

facilities?

9.Describe specific intersection design features and characteristics for cycling, such as contrasting color pavements, 

advance stop lines, or bicycle-specific traffic signals.

10.What types of safety improvements are made at signalized intersections for pedestrians? Examples may include 

leading pedestrian intervals, right-turn-on-red restrictions, 

exclusive pedestrian phasing, and extended crossing time 

for slower crossings. 

11.Describe typical designs and traffic control devices used 

at uncontrolled (unsignalized) pedestrian crossings. 

For example, do criteria or warrants exist for marked 

crosswalks (zebra crossings), flashing beacons, or other 

devices that serve infrequent pedestrian demand?

12.Is automated pedestrian detection commonly used and, 

if so, at what locations? What technologies work best? 

What are maintenance issues or costs?

13.Describe typical lighting practices for pedestrian street 

crossings. Are these used at all crossings or just highdemand crossings?

14.How are bicyclists’ needs and concerns addressed on 

the use of shoulder and centerline rumble strips?

15.What has been the safety experience for pedestrians and 

bicyclists at roundabouts? Are any particular techniques 

employed for persons with disabilities?

16.How is pedestrian and bicyclist safety addressed on 

one-way streets? For example, are contraflow bike 

lanes or special pavement markings used?

17.Describe typical traffic-calming or street design practices 

that support walking and bicycling. In particular, what 

practices are used in snowy climates? What is your 

experience with shared space and removing traffic control 

signage (e.g., Hans Monderman’s “naked streets”)?

18.How are innovative treatments or designs evaluated 

before being widely implemented?

19.Are there national or local laws or ordinances for accessible design for users with disabilities? If not, what is the 

typical practice? Do design parameters address older 

road users, particularly older pedestrians?

20.Who has maintenance responsibility for separated 

bikeways, and how is it accomplished?

21.How do you know when pedestrian and bicyclist 

infrastructure needs to be upgraded or replaced?

Education

22.Describe typical safety education practices for pedestrians 

and bicyclists. For example, who provides funding? 

At what age does education occur? What safety messages 

are communicated and how? Are motorists included?

23.What training and education do engineers, planners, 

police, and other professionals receive on pedestrian and 

bicycle safety? How much is provided in colleges and 

universities versus ongoing training opportunities?

Enforcement

24.What laws exist that provide for pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety? How are they enforced? For example, are they 

enforced routinely or in special campaigns?

25.Is automated enforcement used and, if so, for what laws?

26.What enforcement programs have been implemented to 

address driver behavior and compliance with pedestrianand bicyclist-related laws (right-of-way, due care, etc.)? 

Were they effective?

27.What enforcement programs have been implemented to 

address pedestrian and bicyclist behavior and compliance 

with laws? Were they effective?

28.Describe the typical level of cooperation and courtesy 

between motorists and bicyclists. For example, does your 

country or city have a problem with “road rage” between 

autos and bikes? If so, what has been done to address it?

Topic 2:

Safe Routes to School Programs

Describe approaches and policies for improving safety for 

child pedestrians and bicyclists, especially those that support 

programs like Safe Routes to School.

29.What percentage of children walk or bike to school? 

What actions have occurred to increase or decrease these 

percentages?

30.What percentage of walking and cycling fatalities are 

considered children? What are you doing to address this?

31.What research is underway to address child walking and 

biking safety?

32.Does your city or region have a Safe Routes to School 

program? If so, please describe. For example, what age 

ranges does it include? How is it funded? Are data 

collected to evaluate results? 

33.Has your area dealt with increasing school bus and 

private auto use for transporting kids to school because 

of parents’ concerns about child safety (e.g., unsafe roads 

or no sidewalks) and security (e.g., child kidnapping, 

54 | Appendix A: Amplifying Questions
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 55

molestation)? If so, how have you addressed 

these concerns?

34.What type of bicycle facility is used to accommodate 

young bicyclists? In the United States, for example, 

young cyclists typically ride on the sidewalk.

Topic 3:

Monitoring Usage Levels and Exposure

Describe quantitative methods of monitoring pedestrian and 

bicyclist usage levels (e.g., counts and surveys) and exposure 

to crashes.

35.Is bicyclist and pedestrian travel monitored? If so, describe 

techniques (household survey, screenline counts, etc.), 

equipment used, how often, how long, how many 

locations, etc.

36.How have rates of walking and bicycling changed in your 

country over the last several decades? What factors 

contributed to any changes? Do safety statistics improve 

as usage increases (i.e., “safety in numbers”)?

37.What is the typical reporting threshold for pedestrian and 

bicyclist crashes? Is there an issue with underreporting? 

If so, how is it addressed?

38.Are bicyclist and pedestrian safety exposure rates 

calculated and/or reported? If so, how is exposure 

defined? By population? By number of trips? 

By estimated travel distance?

Topic 4:

Safety Research and Evaluation

Describe recently completed or ongoing research and 

collaboration opportunities in pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

39.Are you participating in international research or 

collaboration on pedestrian and bicyclist safety? 

If so, please describe.

40.In what ways can the United States work with your 

agency or organization to share and/or collaborate 

on pedestrian and bicyclist research?

41.Are you aware of research and development initiatives 

in the auto industry to improve pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety, such as crash survivability standards for autos and 

infrared pedestrian detection on auto dashboard displays? 
56 | 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 57

APPENDIX B|

Scanning Study Itinerary and 

Meeting Schedule

Date City Host Agencies

Saturday, May 9, 2009 Travel Day

Sunday, May 10 Copenhagen, Denmark Scan Team Organization Meeting

Monday, May 11 Malmö and Lund, Sweden Swedish Road Administration

Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute

Lund University

City of Malmö

City of Lund

Tuesday, May 12 Copenhagen, Denmark Danish Road Directorate

City of Copenhagen

Wednesday, May 13 Nakskov, Denmark City of Nakskov

Lolland CTF (Community Testing Facilities)

Thursday, May 14 Berlin, Germany Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development

Friday, May 15 Potsdam, Germany City of Potsdam

Potsdam University of Applied Sciences

Saturday, May 16 Travel Day

Sunday, May 17 Bern, Switzerland Scan Team Midtour Meeting

Monday, May 18 Bern, Switzerland Swiss Federal Roads Office

City of Bern

Tuesday, May 19 Winterthur, Switzerland City of Winterthur

Wednesday, May 20 London, United Kingdom Department for Transport

Thursday, May 21 London, United Kingdom Transport for London

Friday, May 22 Bristol, United Kingdom City of Bristol

NHS Bristol (National Health Services)

Saturday, May 23 London, United Kingdom Scan Team Final Meeting

Sunday, May 24 Travel Day
58 | 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 59

APPENDIX C|

Host Country Contacts

Sweden

Swedish Road Administration

Torsten Bergh

E-mail: torsten.bergh@vv.se

Telephone: +46 243 752 66

www.vv.se

Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute

Anna Niska

E-mail: anna.niska@vti.se

Telephone: +46 13 20 40 48

www.vti.se

Lund University

Thomas Jonsson, Ph.D.

E-mail: thomas.jonsson@tft.lth.se

Telephone: +46 46 222 91 39

www.tos.lth.se

City of Malmö, Sweden

Maria-Christina Brodde Makrí

E-mail: maria.brodde@malmo.se

Telephone: +46 40 341 390

www.malmo.se

City of Lund, Sweden

Anna Karlsson

E-mail: anna.karlsson@lund.se

Telephone: +46 46 355 240

www.lund.se

Denmark

Danish Road Directorate

Sven Krarup Nielsen

E-mail: skn@vd.dk

Telephone: +45 7244 3202

www.hvu.dk

City of Copenhagen, Denmark

Steffen Rasmussen

E-mail: steras@tmf.kk.dk

Telephone: +45 3366 3586

www.kk.dk

City of Nakskov, Denmark

Philip Rasmussen

E-mail: pr@byoglandskab.dk

Telephone: +45 5137 6980

www.lolland.dk

Lolland CTF (Community Testing Facilities)

Leo Christensen

E-mail: lech@lolland.dk

Telephone: +45 5467 6529

www.lolland.dk

Germany

Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development

Burkhard Horn

E-mail: burkhard.horn@senstadt.berlin.de

Telephone: +49 030 9025 1650

www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de

City of Potsdam, Germany

Axel Dörrie

E-mail: axel.doerrie@rathaus.potsdam.de

Telephone: +49 0331 289 2545

www.potsdam.de

Potsdam University of Applied Sciences

Herbert Staadt, Ph.D.

E-mail: staadt@fh-potsdam.de

Telephone: +49 0331 580 1322

www.fh-potsdam.de
60 | Appendix C: Host Country Contacts

Switzerland

Swiss Federal Roads Office

Niklaus Schranz

E-mail: niklaus.schranz@astra.admin.ch

Telephone: +41 31 323 42 86

www.astra.admin.ch, www.langsamverkehr.ch

City of Bern, Switzerland

Julian Baker

E-mail: julian.baker@bern.ch

Telephone: +41 031 321 70 74

www.bern.ch

City of Winterthur, Switzerland

Daniela Gantner

E-mail: daniela.gantner@win.ch

Telephone: +41 052 267 54 22

www.stadt.winterthur.ch

United Kingdom

Department for Transport

Andrew Colski

E-mail: andrew.colski@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Telephone: +44 020 7944 2057

www.dft.gov.uk

Transport for London

Rose Ades

E-mail: rose.ades@tfl.gov.uk

Telephone: +44 020 3054 0864

www.tfl.gov.uk

City of Bristol, United Kingdom

Ed Plowden

E-mail: ed.plowden@bristol.gov.uk

Telephone: +44 117 90 36282

www.bristol.gov.uk

NHS Bristol (National Health Services)

Adrian Davis, Ph.D.

E-mail: adrian.davis@bristol.gov.uk

Telephone: +44 117 92 22567
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 61

APPENDIX D|

Scan Team Members

Contact Information

Edward L. Fischer (AASHTO Cochair)

State Traffic Engineer

State Roadway Engineer

Oregon Department of Transportation

355 Capitol Street, NE, 5th Floor

Salem, OR 97301-3871

Telephone: 503-986-3606

Fax: 503-986-4063

E-mail: ed.l.fischer@odot.state.or.us

Gabe K. Rousseau (FHWA Cochair)

U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway 

Administration Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager

HEPN-50, Room E74-477

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-8044

Fax: 202-366-3409

E-mail: gabe.rousseau@dot.gov 

Shawn M. Turner (Report Facilitator)

Research Engineer

Texas Transportation Institute

405C CE/TTI Building

3135 TAMU 

College Station, TX 77843-3135

Telephone: 979-845-8829

Fax: 979-845-6008

E-mail: shawn-turner@tamu.edu 

Ernest (Ernie) J. Blais

Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration Vermont Division

Federal Building

87 State Street

Montpelier, VT 05602-2954

Mailing Address: PO Box 568, Montpelier, VT 05601-0568

Telephone: 802-828-4570 (Direct) or 802-828-4423

Fax: 802-828-4424

E-mail: ernie.blais@fhwa.dot.gov

Cindy L. Engelhart

Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Engineer

Northern Virginia District

Virginia Department of Transportation

14685 Avion Parkway, Suite 345

Chantilly, VA 20151-1104

Telephone: 703-383-2231

Fax: 703-383-2230

E-mail: cindy.engelhart@vdot.virginia.gov 

David R. Henderson

Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator

Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization

111 NW First Street, Suite 920

Miami, FL 33128

Telephone: 305-375-1647

Fax: 305-375-4950

E-mail: davidh@miamidade.gov

Representing: Association of Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Professionals

Jonathan (Jon) A. Kaplan

Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager

Local Transportation Facilities

Vermont Agency of Transportation

1 National Life Drive

Montpelier, VT 05633-5001

Telephone: 802-828-0059

Fax: 802-828-5712

E-mail: jon.kaplan@state.vt.us 

Vivian M. (Kit) Keller

Executive Director

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals

PO Box 93

Cedarburg, WI 53012

Telephone: 262-375-6180

Fax: 866-720-3611

E-mail: kit@apbp.org
62 | Appendix D: Scan Team Members

James D. Mackay

Project Engineer

Bicycle Technical Committee, National Committee on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices

4150 West Stanford Avenue

Denver, CO 80236-3414

Telephone: 303-797-2914

Fax: 303-797-2914

E-mail: mackaybike@aol.com

Priscilla A. Tobias

State Safety Engineer

Illinois Department of Transportation

Bureau of Safety Engineering

2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Room 323

Springfield, IL 62764

Telephone: 217-782-3568

Fax: 217-782-0377

E-mail: priscilla.tobias@illinois.gov 

Diane E. Wigle

Division Chief

Safety Countermeasures Division

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-2695

Fax: 202-366-7721

E-mail: diane.wigle@dot.gov

Charlie V. Zegeer

Associate Director

University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center

CB3430, Bolin Creek Center

730 Airport Road 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430

Telephone: 919-962-7801 

Fax: 919-962-8710

E-mail: zegeer@claire.hsrc.unc.edu 

Edward L. Fischer (AASHTO cochair) is State traffic 

engineer and State roadway engineer for the Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT). As the manager 

of the Traffic-Roadway Section, Fischer is responsible for 

ODOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian program, which administers 

more than $5 million a year in bicycle and pedestrian 

improvements in Oregon. By statute, 1 percent of highway 

funds in Oregon must be used for construction and maintenance of bike trails and foot paths. As State traffic engineer, 

Fischer must approve all new traffic control devices on State 

highways in Oregon, including crosswalks. He leads the 

Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee, which establishes 

traffic control standards for the State. He is a member of 

ODOT’s Research Advisory Committee, which determines 

how transportation research funds are directed. Fischer has 

more than 30 years of experience in traffic and transportation engineering in the public and private sectors. Before 

becoming the State traffic engineer, he worked for the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Forest 

Service, and a consulting firm in Seattle, WA. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in engineering from Oregon 

State University. He is a member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the National Committee on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices, the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, and the AASHTO task force on U.S. 

Bicycle Routes. 

Dr. Gabe K. Rousseau (FHWA cochair) is the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and FHWA Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Program manager. He oversees Federal 

bicycle and pedestrian guidance and policy, manages 

pedestrian and bicycle research, and is the program 

manager for the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program. 

He serves on the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) 

Pedestrian Committee and the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development Working Group on Pedestrian Safety, Urban Space, and Health. Rousseau is also the 

secretary for the AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on 

Nonmotorized Transportation. He has worked on pedestrian 

and bicycle safety outreach and research for the past 7 

years. He has a Ph.D. in experimental psychology (human 

factors) and is a member of the Association of Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Professionals (APBP), ITE, and the Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society. 

Shawn M. Turner (report facilitator) is a research 

engineer for the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) in 

Biographical Information
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 63

College Station, TX. Turner conducts and manages 

pedestrian and bicyclist research projects for several 

different research sponsors. His recent research has been 

related to pedestrian and bicyclist safety and behavioral 

evaluations, usage monitoring, and planning methods and 

tools. In his 17 years at TTI, Turner has been involved in 

a variety of pedestrian and bicyclist activities, from advising 

Federal agencies on a national research agenda to lecturing 

in university courses on pedestrian and bicycle transportation to instructing bicycle safety classes in his community. 

Turner received degrees in civil engineering from Pennsylvania State University and Texas A&M University. He is a 

licensed professional engineer in Texas and a league cycling 

instructor with the League of American Bicyclists. He chairs 

the TRB Pedestrian Committee and is a member of its 

Urban Data and Information Systems Committee.

Ernest (Ernie) J. Blais is the division administrator for 

the FHWA Vermont Division in Montpelier, VT. Blais oversees 

an annual Federal-aid program of about $200 million in 

Vermont. He provides leadership and guidance to State and 

local officials in the identification of surface transportation 

needs and related priorities in carrying out national transportation program goals. Blais has worked with FHWA for more 

than 35 years, serving as the FHWA bicycle coordinator in 

Ohio for more than 15 years. Blais has a bachelor’s degree 

in civil engineering from the University of Massachusetts, 

Dartmouth. He is a licensed professional civil engineer in 

California and a member of the American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE).

Cindy L. Engelhart is a bicycle pedestrian transportation engineer with the Northern Virginia District of the 

Virginia Department of Transportation. She serves as the 

district’s technical bicycle and pedestrian design expert. 

Her emphasis is on providing bike and pedestrian technical 

assistance on the State’s megaprojects (larger than $100 

million), including writing draft procedures for evaluating 

public-private partnership (PPP) project proposals, 

reviewing maintenance of traffic plans, providing technical 

verbiage for innovative PPP project contracts, and reviewing 

asset management agreements. She is a licensed civil 

engineer with 26 years of transportation design experience 

in bridges, highways, drainage, and bike and pedestrian 

issues. In the bike and pedestrian field, she has served 

on several State policy task forces and reviewed numerous 

manual revisions. Engelhart graduated from Louisiana 

State University. She is a member of the Bicycle Technical 

Committee and the Pedestrian Task Force of the National 

Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

David R. Henderson is the bicycle/pedestrian 

coordinator for the Miami-Dade County Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO). He works with State and 

local agencies to identify, plan, and fund projects and 

programs that increase walking and bicycling mobility 

and safety. Henderson manages nonmotorized planning 

studies funded through the Unified Planning Work Program, 

provides staff support to the MPO’s Bicycle/Pedestrian 

Advisory Committee, and updates the bicycle and pedestrian elements of the Long Range Transportation Plan and 

Transportation Improvement Program. Previously, he worked 

as a transportation planner for the Florida Department of 

Transportation. Henderson has a bachelor’s degree in 

economics from Indiana University and a master’s of urban 

and regional planning from the University of Miami. He is 

a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, 

APBP, and the Florida Bicycle Association board of directors. 

Jonathan (Jon) A. Kaplan is the Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Program manager at the Vermont Agency of 

Transportation (VTrans). Kaplan is the agency’s prime point 

of contact for technical issues related to designing transportation projects to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian 

travel. Kaplan is also responsible for statewide efforts to 

encourage bicycling and walking and to compile data about 

the use and safety of these two nonmotorized modes. 

He is developing an updated statewide program to provide 

education to all roadway users on how to interact safely on 

the State’s roadways. Previously, he was the Vermont Safe 

Routes to School coordinator. Before joining VTrans, Kaplan 

worked as a senior transportation planner with the Southern 

Windsor County Regional Planning Commission, a project 

engineer with the Vermont consulting firm DuBois & King, 

and the bicycle and pedestrian specialist with the Oregon 

Department of Transportation. Kaplan has a bachelor’s 

degree in civil engineering from Worcester Polytechnic 

Institute. He is a licensed civil engineer in Vermont and 

a member of ITE and APBP. 

Vivian M. (Kit) Keller is the executive director of the 

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. As one 

of APBP’s two representatives to the America Bikes Coalition, 

Keller frames issues and goals for future transportation 

legislation in the United States (e.g., raise the profile of 

bicycling and walking as a solution to physical inactivity, 

traffic congestion, and climate change). APBP is studying 

the planning model of Vancouver British Columbia, Canada: 

pedestrians first, then transit users and bicyclists, then the 

movement of goods, and finally the private automobile 
64 | Appendix D: Scan Team Members

(2008 Townmaking Tour led by Dan Burden and the 

California Local Government Commission). Keller is a bicycle 

safety instructor (League of American Bicyclists) and has 

facilitated more than 25 Walkable Community workshops. 

She is a graduate of Valparaiso University in Indiana (social 

work, psychology, and political science) and earned a doctor 

of jurisprudence degree from the Indiana University School 

of Law in Indianapolis. Keller is a former local elected official 

and planning commissioner. As a member of the American 

Public Health Association, she is interested in applying health 

impact assessments to transportation.

James D. Mackay is a project engineer for the Denver 

Public Works Department (but participated in the scanning 

study in his personal capacity). Mackay is involved with 

municipal and federally funded projects such as constructing bicycle and pedestrian bridges; constructing streets, 

sidewalks and pedestrian lighting; and rehabilitating street 

underpasses. Previously, he was Denver’s bicycle planner 

for 17 years and the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation’s bicycle facilities engineer for 3 years. He 

graduated from Southern Illinois University with a bachelor’s 

degree in civil engineering technology and from Manatee 

Junior College with an associate’s degree in journalism. 

He is a licensed professional engineer. He is a member of 

the ITE delegation to the National Committee on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices, ASCE, the American Society for 

Testing and Materials, and APBA. 

Priscilla A. Tobias is the State safety engineer for the 

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) in Springfield, IL. 

Tobias directs and administers IDOT’s integrated safety 

engineering program and implementation of Illinois’ Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan, which includes pedestrian and 

bicycle safety and an annual statewide safety program of 

more than $50 million. She serves on the Chicago Mayor’s 

Pedestrian Advisory Council and IDOT’s Safe Routes to 

School Implementation Committee. Tobias has more than 17 

years of professional experience in transportation engineering 

in the public sector, including developing and implementing 

engineering policy and safety initiatives. She has a bachelor’s 

degree in civil engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University. She is a member of the AASHTO 

Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety and the 

AASHTO Subcommittee on Safety Management (SM), is the 

chair of the SM Task Group for Vulnerable Users (pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and motorcyclists), is the vice chair of the Joint 

Task Group for the Highway Safety Manual, and serves on 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program panels.

Diane E. Wigle is chief of the Safety Countermeasures 

Division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

in Washington, DC. She is responsible for planning and 

developing behavioral safety programs addressing pedestrian, 

bicycle, older driver, motorcycle, and pupil transportation 

safety, in addition to Safe Routes to School programs. 

She works closely with FHWA to develop and coordinate 

pedestrian and bicycle safety policies and programs. She 

served as the U.S. DOT’s liaison to the U.S. Access Board 

and in that capacity was chair of the Public Rights-of-Way 

Committee. She received a bachelor’s degree in secondary 

education from Central Michigan University and a master’s 

of public administration from Eastern Michigan University. 

Charlie V. Zegeer is the associate director of the 

University of North Carolina’s Highway Safety Research 

Center. He is also the director of the FHWA-funded 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, where he is 

responsible for overseeing pedestrian and bicycle research 

and providing technical information through Web sites, 

training courses, and user guides related to pedestrians and 

bicyclists. Zegeer has served as the principal investigator on 

dozens of studies on safer facilities for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and he has authored more than 150 

reports, user guides, and publications on highway safety. 

He received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and a 

master’s degree in civil engineering (transportation specialty) from the University of Kentucky. He is an emeritus 

member of the TRB Pedestrian Committee and past chair 

of the ITE Committee on Design and Safety for Pedestrian 

Facilities. He is the winner of TRB’s R. Grant Mickle award 

and the newly created Pat Waller award. He is a registered 

professional engineer in Michigan. 
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe | 65

APPENDIX E|

Internet Resources for Pedestrian 

and Bicyclist Safety

Scanning Study Host Countries

General European

European Cyclists’ Federation | www.ecf.com

European Network for Cycling Expertise | www.velo.info

International Federation of Pedestrians |

 www.pedestrians-int.org

Walk21 | www.walk21.com

European Road Safety Observatory | www.erso.eu

Sweden

Swedish Road Administration | www.vv.se

Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute | www.vti.se

Lund University | www.tos.lth.se

City of Malmö, Sweden | www.malmo.se

City of Lund, Sweden | www.lund.se

Denmark

Danish Ministry of Transport | www.trm.dk

Danish Road Directorate | www.hvu.dk

City of Copenhagen, Denmark | www.kk.dk

Copenhagen, City of Cyclists | www.kk.dk/sitecore/

 content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/

 Services/Mobility/CityOfCyclists.aspx

Copenhagen Blog | www.copenhagenize.com

City of Nakskov, Denmark | www.lolland.dk

Danish Transport Research Institute | www.transport.dtu.dk

Germany

Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development | 

 www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de

City of Potsdam, Germany | www.potsdam.de

Potsdam University of Applied Sciences | 

 www.fh-potsdam.de

Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Affairs | 

 www.bmv.de/en

German National Cycling Plan | www.nrvp.de

National German Bicycle Club (Allgemeiner Deutscher 

 Fahrrad-Club) | www.adfc.de

Switzerland

Swiss Federal Roads Office | www.astra.admin.ch,

 www.langsamverkehr.ch

City of Bern, Switzerland | www.bern.ch

City of Winterthur, Switzerland | www.stadt.winterthur.ch

Switzerland Mobility | www.switzerlandmobility.ch

United Kingdom

Department for Transport | www.dft.gov.uk

Transport for London | www.tfl.gov.uk

City of Bristol, United Kingdom | www.bristol.gov.uk

Cycling England | www.cyclingengland.co.uk

Cycling Scotland | www.cyclingscotland.org

Walk England | www.walkengland.org.uk

Sustrans | www.sustrans.org.uk

Living Streets | www.livingstreets.org.uk

Transport Research Laboratory | www.trl.co.uk

Children’s Traffic Club | www.trafficclub.co.uk

Bikeability | www.bikeability.org.uk

United States

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) | 

 www.pedbikeinfo.org

PBIC Walking Site | www.walkinginfo.org

PBIC Bicycling Site | www.bicyclinginfo.org

PBIC Image Library | www.pedbikeimages.org

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bicycle 

 and Pedestrian Program | www.fhwa.dot.gov/

 environment/bikeped/

FHWA Office of Safety | safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/

FHWA Safety Research | www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/
66 | Appendix E: Internet Resources for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration | 

 www.nhtsa.gov/

National Center for Safe Routes to School | 

 www.saferoutesinfo.org/

National Center for Bicycling and Walking | 

 www.bikewalk.org/

Alliance for Biking and Walking (formerly Thunderhead

 Alliance) | www.peoplepoweredmovement.org

America Walks | www.americawalks.org/

League of American Bicyclists | www.bikeleague.org/

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals | 

 www.apbp.org

American Association of State Highway Transportation 

 Officials Joint Technical Committee on Nonmotorized 

 Transportation | design.transportation.org/?siteid=

 59&pageid=761

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

 Bicycle Technical Committee | members.cox.net/

 ncutcdbtc/

Transportation Research Board Committee on Pedestrians | 

 www.walkinginfo.org/trbped/

Transportation Research Board Committee on Bicycle 

 Transportation | www.bicyclinginfo.org/trbbike/

Publication No. FHWA-PL-10-010 HPIP/02-10(3.5)EW

OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9636

Fax: (202) 366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov