Non-Motorized User Safety

A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA-SA-12-026

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides highquality 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.

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability 

for its contents or use thereof.
1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-12-026

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Non-Motorized User Safety: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners

5. Report Date

November 2012

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Dan Nabors, Elissa Goughnour, Mike Sawyer

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700

Vienna, VA 22182-2626

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00022, T-10-002

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590-9898

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HSST

15. Supplementary Notes

The Task Manager for this document was Rosemarie Anderson, FHWA Office of Safety. The Technical Oversight Working 

Group included Anthony Aglio (Delaware Department of Transportation), David Averill (North Front Range MPO), Ann 

Chanecka (Pima Association of Governments), Ted Davini (Caltrans), Joseph F. Hacker (Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission), Jakob Helmboldt (City of Richmond, Virginia), Mark Hood (Pennoni Associates Inc.), Hillary Isebrands (FHWA), 

Regina Mahoney (Town of Milton, Vermont), Leslie Meehan (Nashville Area MPO), Paul Niehoff (Portland Area 

Comprehensive Transportation System), Greg Piland (FHWA), Chandra Ravada (East Central Intergovernmental Association), 

Tamara Redmon (FHWA), John B. Thomas (Frederick County, Maryland), and Caroline Trueman (FHWA). Contributions were 

made by the following: Dan Lovas, Kevin Moriarty, and Jakob Helmboldt. Graphic design was provided by Jorge Quinones. 

Images were provided by Dan Nabors, Elissa Goughnour, Frank Gross, Kevin Sitzman, Tamara Redmon, Dan Burden, and Ted 

Shafer. 

16. Abstract

Many of the roads in the U.S. are non-Interstate, local and rural roads that are maintained and operated by local agencies, 

such as towns, counties, and Tribal governments. Non-motorized modes of travel, such as biking, walking, and riding horses 

or horse-drawn carriages can be expected along these roads and may face safety concerns when utilizing the same roadway 

as motorized travelers. This Non-Motorized User Safety Manual focuses on low-volume local rural roadways and rural villages 

and describes a process that can be used to address the safety of non-motorized users. It provides a concise “toolbox” of 

resources and information for addressing non-motorized safety concerns, and provides evaluation methods for locallyimplemented initiatives to address the safety of non-motorized users.

17. Key Words

Non-motorized, Local, Rural, Rural Village, Toolbox, 

Implementation, Evaluation, Local Road, Safety.

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

89

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized.

Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | i

Table of Contents

Introduction ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1

Background 1

Purpose 1

Understanding the Non-Motorized User Safety Issue 2

Using this Guide 8

1: Identifying Factors Affecting Non-Motorized Safety ���������������������������������� 11

1.1 Getting Started 11

1.2 Assembling Data 12

1.3 Engaging Stakeholders 18

1.4 Organizing Data 20

2: Assessing Factors Affecting Non‐Motorized Safety ������������������������������������ 25

2.1 Defining the Problem 25

2.2 Analyzing Data 26

2.3 Prioritizing Concerns 28

3: Selecting and Implementing Countermeasures����������������������������������������� 31

3.1 Selecting Countermeasures 31

3.2 Examples of Countermeasure Selection on Rural Roads 43

3.3 Identifying Funding Sources 48

3.4 Implementing Countermeasures 48

4: Follow-up and Evaluation�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51

4.1 Tracking Countermeasures 51

4.2 Evaluating Effectiveness 52

5: Summary�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53

Appendix A: Countermeasures ��������������������������������������������������������������������A-1

Appendix B: Tools & Resources��������������������������������������������������������������������B-1
ii | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

List of Tables

Table 1. Example Non-Motorized Traffic Count Summary Table. 15

Table 2. Local/Rural Road Non-Motorized Safety Stakeholders. 19

Table 3. Example Summary Table. 21

Table 4. Prioritization Matrix. 29

Table 5. Crosswalk Marking Guidance for Roadways < 9,000 vpd 34

Table 6. Potential Funding Sources 48

Table 7. Example Table to Monitor Countermeasure Installation and Measure 

of Effectiveness Data. 51

Table 8. Roadway Measures A-2

Table 9. Crossing Measures A-9

Table 10. Speed Reduction Measures A-17

List of Figures

Figure 1. Common Conditions for Vehicle-Pedestrian and Vehicle-Cyclist 

Crashes on Rural Roads. 4

Figure 2. Pedestrian Fatality Rate Based on Speed of Vehicle. 5

Figure 3. Stopping Distance for Vehicles. 6

Figure 4. The Four-Step Process for Addressing Non-Motorized Issues. 9

Figure 5. Non-Motorized Traffic Count Locations. 15

Figure 6. Example Regional “Push Pin” Map Showing Non-Motorized Crash 

Locations. 22

Figure 7. Condition Diagram Example in a Rural Town. 23

Figure 8. Transition Zone and Approaching Zone Concept. 38
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 1

Introduction

Background

Approximately 60 percent of all road miles in the U.S. are non-Interstate, rural 

roads maintained and operated by local agencies, such as towns, counties, and 

Tribal governments.1 Non-motorized modes of travel can be expected along 

these roads. Non-motorized transportation is primarily comprised of biking, 

walking, equestrian, and horse-drawn vehicles but may also include other nonpowered transportation devices.

This guide focuses on pedestrian and cyclist safety on rural roadways. Cyclists must travel in the 

same direction as other vehicular traffic, while pedestrians should typically walk against traffic.

Many non-motorized travelers face daily challenges and safety concerns when 

utilizing the same roadway as motorized travelers, making the non-motorized 

users especially vulnerable when a crash occurs. While this may be particularly 

evident within small communities situated along rural highways, the needs of 

non-motorized users on undeveloped portions of rural highways may not be 

clearly understood. Recognizing and addressing non-motorized challenges 

and safety on local rural roads is an important step in improving safety for all 

road users.

Purpose

The purpose of this guide is to assist local rural road practitioners in making 

effective use of current practices and resources addressing non-motorized mobility 

and safety, thereby creating a more accommodating and viable transportation 

system for all road users. Local practitioners may be road supervisors, street 

superintendents, engineers, planners, local officials, law enforcement officers, 

or others who are responsible for the rural road transportation network. While 

1 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/hm60.cfm?hm_year=2007
2 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

this document will provide guidance on addressing non-motorized safety, other 

resources—many of which are referenced in this document—may need to 

be consulted to address the varying and often unique safety issues affecting 

non-motorized users on rural roads. The specific objectives of this guide are 

as follows:

• Describe a process that can be used to address the safety of non-motorized 

users on local rural roads.

• Explain the significance of non-motorized transportation safety on local 

rural roads.

• Communicate the primary factors affecting non-motorized safety on local 

rural roads.

• Establish a concise “toolbox” of resources and information for addressing 

non-motorized safety concerns.

• Provide evaluation methods for locally-implemented initiatives.

This document focuses on low-volume local rural roadways (also known as 

rural highways) that typically pass through undeveloped or agricultural land. 

However, such roadways may be dotted with small commercial areas, towns, or 

other small activity centers. In this guide, these areas will be referred to as “rural 

villages.” Neighborhood streets are not the focus of the document.

Understanding the Non-Motorized User Safety Issue

Identifying potential factors affecting the safety 

of non-motorized users on rural roadways is 

important to help understand non-motorized 

roadway users’ risk. In 2009, more than 1,500 

persons were killed in crashes involving a 

motorized and non-motorized user on rural 

roads in the U.S., with nearly one-quarter 

(368) of those occurring on local rural roads. 

Pedestrians were killed in approximately 83 

percent (1,252) of all rural crashes involving a 

non-motorized user, and bicyclists were killed 

in approximately 14 percent (204) of these 

crashes. In the study Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990’s, 

it is shown that, while crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists that result 

Rural pedestrian crashes 

are nearly twice as likely 

to result in a fatality 

and rural bicycle crashes 

are three times as likely 

to result in a fatality 

compared to urban 

crashes. (From UNC 

Highway Safety Research 

Center, 2006) 
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 3

in a fatality are typically reported, less serious crashes are more frequent and 

underreported.2

Occupants of other types of non-motorized transport devices, such as persons 

on personal conveyances—including ridden animals and horse-drawn vehicles 

(skaters, skateboarders, scooters, and segways are also included in this 

category)—were killed in approximately three percent of the rural crashes 

involving a non-motorized user.3 While constituting a relatively small percentage 

nationally, these crashes are likely to have regional significance, particularly in 

rural communities where the use of horse-drawn vehicles are more ordinary. 

Ohio, for example, is home to the country’s largest Amish population, most of 

whom do not use automobiles. Crash data from 1990-1997 revealed an average 

of 64 horse-drawn vehicle crashes in the State annually, approximately one 

percent of which resulted in a fatality.4 Horseback-riding may also be a common 

activity along rural roadways. Despite the relatively low frequency of equestrian 

and horse-drawn vehicle crashes, the safety of these non-motorized roadway 

users should not be overlooked, and measures to address the most significant 

causal factors should be considered.

Factors Affecting Crash Risk 

There are a number of factors impacting the safety of non-motorized roadway 

users in rural areas. According to Factors Contributing to Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Crashes on Rural Highways, rural pedestrian crashes are nearly twice as likely to 

result in a fatality and rural bicycle crashes are three times as likely to result in 

a fatality as urban crashes of like type.5 Two-lane roads comprise the majority 

of rural roads, exhibit the greatest number of rural bicycle and pedestrian 

crashes, and have the highest overall crash frequency. The analysis of rural 

non-motorized crashes (see Figure 1) performed during the Hunter et al study 

2 Hunter, W.W, J.C. Stutts, W.E. Pein, and C.L. Cox, 1996. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash 

Types of the Early 1990’s. Publication No. FHWA-RD-95-163. Federal Highway 

Administration, McLean, VA. Available: http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/

PedBikeCrashTypes.pdf

3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 

2009. Available: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.

4 Amish Buggy Safety on Ohio’s State Roadway System, Analysis and Action Plan, Ohio 

Department of Transportation, September 2000. Available: http://www.dot.state.

oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramMgt/ProgramManagement/Documents/Amish_

Buggy/AmishFinalDraft_wholedoc.pdf

5 Factors Contributing to Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Rural Highways – Final 

Report, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2006. Available: http://www.hsisinfo.

org/pdf/HSIS-Rural-PedBike-Final-Report.pdf
4 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

indicates common conditions where crashes involving a motorized vehicle and a 

pedestrian or a cyclist on rural roads may occur include the following:

• Two-lane roadways.

• Nighttime conditions (for pedestrian crashes).

• Non-intersection-related.

• Relatively high vehicle speeds.

• Absence of shoulders along the roadway (and other space constraints).

Figure 1. Common Conditions for Vehicle-Pedestrian and Vehicle-Cyclist Crashes on Rural 

Roads.6

There is a significant difference between pedestrian and bicycle crashes by day 

versus night. A majority of rural pedestrian crashes occurred during nighttime 

hours (59 percent), while, the majority of rural bicycle crashes occurred during 

daytime hours (66 percent).

Both rural bicycle and pedestrian crashes were significantly more common at 

non-intersection locations. The study revealed that the most common crash type 

involving pedestrians on rural roads was “walking along the roadway,” which 

represented 26 percent of the total pedestrian crashes.6 The most common 

6 Factors Contributing to Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Rural Highways – Final 

Report, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2006. Available: http://www.hsisinfo.

org/pdf/HSIS-Rural-PedBike-Final-Report.pdf

59

34

18 23

46 47

57 54

71

Total % of Rural Crashes 80

Rural Bicycle

Rural Pedestrians

Occurred

at night

Intersection

Related

Vehicle Speed

41-60 MPH

Speed Limit 50

MPH or Higher

Road with

Unpaved 

Shoulders
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 5

rural crash types for bicyclists generally occurred at non-intersection locations 

and were almost evenly split between “motorist overtaking bicyclist,” which 

accounted for approximately 24 percent of the crashes, and “bicyclist turn/

merge into path of motorist,” which accounted for approximately 22 percent of 

the crashes.

Speeding 

Relatively high vehicle speeds are also a contributing factor to rural bicycle and 

pedestrian crashes and fatalities. More than half of all rural pedestrian and 

bicycle crashes occur on roads with a posted speed limit of 50 mph or greater. 

Nearly half of rural pedestrian and bicycle fatalities occur with vehicle speeds 

between 41 and 60 mph. As shown in Figure 2, the probability of a pedestrian 

fatality as a result of a collision with a vehicle increases from 5 percent to 85 

percent as vehicle speed increases from 20 mph to 40 mph. In short, rural 

crashes are more likely to result in fatalities for non-motorized users than urban 

crashes because speed is a major contributing factor.

Figure 2. Pedestrian Fatality Rate Based on Speed of Vehicle.7

Speed also affects a driver’s ability to identify and react to a potential conflict. 

The stopping distance is the total distance it takes for a driver to identify 

and react to a safety hazard in the vehicle path—the reaction distance—and 

then bring the vehicle to a complete stop—the braking distance. As shown in 

Figure 3, as a vehicle’s speed increases, the distance required for it to stop also 

increases. Furthermore, it is paramount that motorized and non-motorized 

users understand each other’s intent. For instance, motorized vehicles have turn 

signals and brake lights to help drivers communicate what they intend to do, 

but non-motorized forms of transportation may present challenges for users 

to communicate with others. Communicating and understanding that intent is 

especially challenging at faster speeds.

7 Killing Speed and Saving Lives, U.K. Department of Transportation, London, 1987.

% Chance of Pedestrian Fatality at a Given Motor Vehicle Speed

5%

45%

85%

20 ���

30 ���

40 ���
6 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Figure 3. Stopping Distance for Vehicles.

Unpaved Shoulders 

In a study conducted by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety 

Research Center, it was shown that the majority of rural bicycle and pedestrian 

crashes occurred on roads with unpaved shoulders, accounting for 71 percent 

of pedestrian crashes and 80 percent of bicycle crashes.8 Roadways with 

unpaved shoulders are a significant concern in rural contexts. Rural roads 

without shoulders lack separation between motorized and non-motorized 

users. Pavement edge drop-offs can also be problematic, especially for cyclists, 

since they can cause a cyclist veering off the roadway to lose control and crash. 

Additionally, space constraints along rural roadways can be caused by exposed 

roadside hazards and poor pavement conditions.

Behavioral Factors 

Behavior plays a major role in non-motorized crashes. It is critical to understand 

how the roadway environment and roadway user characteristics interact within 

the context of the surrounding community, especially as land use or travel 

habits and patterns change over time. The following behavioral factors affect 

the safety of non-motorized users:

• Motorists’ expectancy of encountering non-motorized users, especially in 

undeveloped areas, is typically low. As a result, motorists’ actions may not 

facilitate safe interactions with non-motorized road users. For example, 

drivers who are focused solely on vehicular traffic and associated traffic 

controls may not give the appropriate attention to non-motorized users. At 

intersections, drivers typically look in locations and directions where there is 

conflicting vehicular traffic and may not notice non-motorized users.

8 Factors Contributing to Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Rural Highways – Final 

Report, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2006. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.

gov/publications/research/safety/10052/index.cfm

Reaction/Braking Distance (feet)

100 200 300 400

40 ���

30 ���

20 ���

10 ���
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 7

• Improper riding or walking habits (e.g., riding against traffic or walking with 

traffic) are also behaviors that affect safety. Various studies demonstrate that 

the likelihood of a pedestrian crash is reduced by a factor of between 1.5 

to 4 times when walking against traffic. A Study of Fatal Pedestrian Crashes 

in Florida conducted by the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban 

Transportation Research (CUTR) indicates that a disproportionate ratio of 

“pedestrian walking along the roadway” crashes involve pedestrians walking 

with traffic (approximately 3 to 1).9 Similarly, the study Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Crash Types of the Early 1990’s found cyclists riding against traffic have been 

shown to increase the risk of a crash. Improper riding and walking habits may 

result from inadequacies in infrastructure and should not be dismissed as 

unrelated to the functional characteristics of the roadway.

• Non-motorized users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists, tend to travel 

along the most direct route possible. If crossings do not provide safe and 

accessible routes that directly connect the destinations people want to 

reach, many non-motorized users may cross roadways outside of crosswalks. 

A crosswalk is the extension of the sidewalk or the shoulder across the 

intersection, regardless of whether it is marked or not. Most jurisdictions 

have crosswalk laws that make it legal for pedestrians to cross the street at 

any intersection, whether marked or not, unless the pedestrian crossing is 

specifically prohibited.

Many crashes involving non-motorized users relate to them sharing the same space along the 

roadway with motor vehicle traffic. Paved shoulders provide separated space for motorized and 

non-motorized users along the roadway and have been shown to be an effective countermeasure in 

reducing all crash types.

Roadway Context

Local rural roads may pass through a variety of settings ranging from rural 

undeveloped areas to rural villages, small towns, or largely isolated subdivision 

9 A Study of Fatal Pedestrian Crashes in Florida. Center for Urban Transportation 

Research (CUTR), University of South Florida, Tampa. Available: http://safety.fhwa.

dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/00861.pdf
8 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

developments. These land use patterns can have a significant impact on 

non-motorized safety. The type of development within rural communities 

significantly contributes to non-motorized crashes and their severity on rural 

roads.10 For example, rural communities undergoing development, located near 

other developed areas, or experiencing demographic shifts should consider 

whether or not the roadway characteristics are compatible with the current or 

future users, including non-motorized transportation.

Applying a Systemic Approach

The challenge in addressing non-motorized safety in rural areas is that crashes 

involving non-motorized road users tend to be widely dispersed . The significant 

number of lane-miles and the dispersed nature of crashes make it difficult to 

target specific locations for assessment and improvement. Therefore, applying a 

systemic approach to addressing the safety of non-motorized users is beneficial 

to proactively address widespread safety issues and cost-effectively minimize 

crash potential. Rather than focus on specific crash locations, a systemic 

approach targets common risk factors in crashes throughout the roadway 

network. A systemic improvement is one that is widely implemented based on 

high-risk roadway features that are correlated with particular crash types rather 

than crash frequency. The systemic problem identification entails a system-wide 

crash analysis targeting specific crash characteristics at the system level. For 

example, an evaluation of rural crash data may reveal crashes involving cyclists 

riding against traffic and motorized traffic exiting driveways on a corridor. 

Rather than target the specific locations where crashes occurred, the systemic 

approach identifies the risk factors associated with all of the crashes along the 

corridor and addresses the risk on a corridor basis (at locations that already 

experienced crashes and those with similar characteristics having the potential 

for similar crashes).

Using this Guide

This guide is intended to provide information, tools, and resources that can 

assist the local practitioner in addressing non-motorized mobility and safety on 

local rural roads. The material presented will help the local practitioner with 

understanding common conditions and behaviors, assessing these conditions 

and behaviors, implementing appropriate countermeasures, and evaluating the 

effectiveness of these countermeasures. Each local area is unique, and there 

10 Factors Contributing to Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Rural Highways – Final 

Report, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2006. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.

gov/publications/research/safety/10052/index.cfm
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 9

is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to addressing and improving non-motorized 

roadway safety. This document presents a general process that can be followed 

to identify potential problem areas and develop targeted strategies. The fourstep process is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. The Four-Step Process for Addressing Non-Motorized Issues.

Step 1 Identify Factors Affecting Non-Motorized Safety (pg. 11)

1. Get Started

> Check SHSP

> Seek Other Project Opportunities

2. Assemble Data

> Crash Data

> Traffic Data

> Speed Data

> Behavioral Data

> Additional Data/Considerations

> Quantitative Tools

3. Engage Stakeholders

4. Organize Data

> Summary Tables

> Annotated Maps and Crash 

Diagrams 

1. Track Countermeasures 2. Evaluate Effectiveness

Step 2 Assess Factors Affecting Non-Motorized Safety (pg. 25)

Step 4 Follow-up and Evaluate (pg. 51)

Step 3 Select and Implement Countermeasures (pg. 31)

1. Select Countermeasures

> Engineering

y Along the Road

y Crossings

y Speed

> Education

> Enforcement

> Emergency Services

2. Identify Funding Sources

3. Implement Countermeasures

1. Define the Problem

(Choose from the three options 

listed below)

> Spot Locations

(Frequently applied to 

intersections and crossings)

> Corridors

(Frequently applied to roadway 

segments)

> Network

(Frequently applied to target 

areas or entire jurisdictions)

2. Analyze the Data

> Conduct In-Office Data Review

> Assess Conditions in the Field

3. Prioritize Concerns

Stakeholder Involvement and Communication Utilized Throughout
10 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

The guide is organized into four sections that follow the four-step process.

Section 1 introduces the types of data that can be used to define and understand 

conditions and behaviors affecting non-motorized safety. Also discussed is the 

subject of engaging stakeholders, such as local law enforcement and regional, 

county, or local engineering staff, who can provide firsthand knowledge of the 

area and of existing safety issues.

Section 2 discusses how to assess the factors affecting non-motorized safety. 

Key points covered in this section include conducting an analysis of data and 

conducting a field assessment, as well as prioritizing non-motorized users’ 

safety concerns.

Section 3 explores the selection and implementation of countermeasures 

that consider the 4 Es of safety (education, enforcement, engineering, and 

emergency services). It outlines considerations in selecting the appropriate 

countermeasures and tools to assist with the selection. Examples that illustrate 

how local agencies may address non-motorized transportation safety are 

also presented.

Section 4 includes methods to follow-up on the implementation of 

countermeasures and evaluate their effectiveness. The evaluation considers 

methods such as obtaining feedback from stakeholders and conducting beforeand-after studies.

Section 5 provides a summary of the outlined process to improve non-motorized 

transportation safety.

Appendix A presents potential countermeasures that can be used to address nonmotorized safety issues including roadway, crossing, and speeding problems. 

Appendix B includes Web links to publications that provide detailed information 

on identifying safety issues and selecting appropriate countermeasures.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 11

1: Identifying Factors Affecting NonMotorized Safety

1.1 Getting Started

Practitioners can draw on a variety of sources to assess the safety of nonmotorized road users. These sources can be formal, such as crash or citation 

data collected by local law enforcement, or informal, such as a conversation with 

someone over a cup of coffee. Practitioners should use the highest quality data 

that are available but understand that formal data describing non-motorized road 

user problems may be a challenge to obtain. Engaging a group of stakeholders 

from all four disciplines (engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency 

services) can help to both identify the problems and facilitate the sharing of 

ideas in order to reach consensus and garner support for implementing effective 

strategies and measures.

Local practitioners should consult their State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP), which can provide a comprehensive framework for reducing fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public roads. An SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive, 

coordinated safety plan that provides a framework for reducing fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads within a State. SHSPs are developed by the 

State Department of Transportation (DOT) in a cooperative process with local, 

State, and Federal input, as well as that from other relevant safety stakeholders. 

The plan establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key safety emphasis 

areas that integrate the four E’s—engineering, education, enforcement and 

emergency services. Often, a State’s SHSP will include local or rural roads as 

an emphasis area for safety improvements. Local practitioners may consult the 

State’s SHSP to determine whether there are emphasis areas, data, or other 

programs that provide opportunities for coordination to address non-motorized 

roadway user safety.

Other methods that a local practitioner may investigate when addressing nonmotorized safety within the local agency include the following:

• Leveraging opportunities to address non-motorized safety through 

other projects.

• Using data to identify non-motorized road user safety problems.

Leveraging opportunities through existing projects may include implementing 

non-motorized user safety measures as part of resurfacing, maintenance, or 

other programmed projects. This may also include projects initiated to address 
12 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

the safety of other users. Data, in particular crash data involving non-motorized 

users, can also initiate a process to address non-motorized safety. Local agencies 

may also consult the State DOT, Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), or 

Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) for information and assistance in 

initiating efforts to improve non-motorized safety.

1.2 Assembling Data

Quality data is the foundation for good decisions. Data obtained through existing 

sources or collected in the field can facilitate the identification of the factors 

affecting non-motorized safety. While crash data may be the primary means to 

identify safety issues involving non-motorized roadway users, other data may 

be critical to provide an understanding of the causes of safety problems. Data 

needed for improving non-motorized users safety fall under two categories: 

quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative Data

Crash Data

Detailed crash data provide an excellent source of information to use in 

understanding the effects of roadway features and roadway user behaviors. 

Typically, at least three years of crash data are necessary to be able to identify 

trends; however, since crashes involving non-motorized users tend to be 

dispersed, a minimum of five years of crash data is recommended. This larger 

sample size of crash data may increase the likelihood that severe crash locations 

or crash trends involving non-motorized users will be identified, although 

the dataset’s size and quality may be questionable since roadway and travel 

patterns may have changed due to modifications in land use patterns and 

roadway geometry, as well as possible changes in data collection methodology 

Practitioners should be aware of possible deficiencies in crash data that may 

result in the inaccurate identification of safety issues. When assembling and 

analyzing crash data, the following points should be considered:
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 13

• Not all crashes and near-misses may be recorded. Studies have shown that 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes are under reported, which may be due in part 

to crashes occurring outside of the public right-of-way (such as at driveways or 

on shared use paths), lack of injury or sufficient property damage to warrant 

a police report, lack of police involvement for fear of legal consequences, and 

other factors.11

• Many non-motorized crashes do not involve a motorized vehicle. Collisions 

may occur between non-motorized users, such as a crash between two 

bicyclists or between a pedestrian and a bicyclist. Crashes may also occur 

where a pedestrian or bicyclist is severely injured due to interaction with a 

roadway or roadside elements. For example, a cyclist running off the road and 

striking a tree is non-motorized crash that may go unreported and may only 

be identified through local knowledge.

• Safety issues may still be present in locations with minimal or no recorded 

crashes or fatalities. Mitigation of those safety issues is not dependent on 

recorded crashes or fatalities but can be used as a preventive measure.

Data regarding all fatal crashes in the U.S. are maintained in the Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS). Local practitioners can query the FARS database to 

obtain information on fatal crashes involving motorized and non-motorized 

users.12 Some local jurisdictions may maintain a crash records database. In 

many States, the DOT maintains crash records and can assist a local agency 

with obtaining crash data. A local practitioner can also contact the LTAP or TTAP 

representative to determine the availability of crash data.

Traffic Data

Traffic volume data are useful to assess the potential for conflict with nonmotorized users and are helpful in selecting appropriate countermeasures. 

However, non-motorized user volumes are seldom collected in rural areas. On 

local roads, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) may be the only available measure of 

vehicle traffic volume. Public land and recreational facility managers may have 

trail counts (pedestrian and bicycle volume counts on trails and shared use paths) 

but local agencies may have only limited traffic volume data. In situations where 

non-motorized traffic safety is a concern, counting non-motorized traffic may be 

useful or necessary to determine the extent of the safety issue. Some examples 

11 Stutts, J.C. and W.W. Hunter, 1997. Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis 

Based on Hospital Emergency Department Data, Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-078. 

Federal Highway Administration, US DOT, Washington DC. Available:

12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System: 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.
14 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

of non-motorized traffic generators that might be collected include schools, 

retail stores, recreational trails, entertainment facilities such as fairgrounds, and 

public transit stops.

Counts should cover peak-period non-motorized traffic at a minimum (which 

could range from two to four or more hours) and may occur during peak 

“recreational” hours, such as weekend mornings. The counts should be 

categorized by adult/child pedestrian, adult/child cyclist, or other non-motorized 

user when appropriate. Other key data elements include the following:

• Direction of travel if walking or riding on the side of the road.

• Whether cyclists and pedestrians are traveling in the right or wrong direction 

(the correct direction of travel for cyclists is with traffic, and for pedestrians, 

it is against traffic).

• Whether cyclists and pedestrians are crossing within or outside of crosswalks.

Figure 5 depicts a two-lane road through a rural village divided into six traffic 

count zones. A person is assigned to each zone to count pedestrians and cyclists 

entering, exiting, or crossing the road within the zone in 15-minute intervals for 

a two-hour period. All six zones extend through the length of the rural village to 

capture the area of highest pedestrian and bicycle activity. Each zone is between 

200 feet and 300 feet in length; that is long enough where one observer can 

see and accurately record all pedestrian and bicycle activity in the zone. 

Agencies conducting similar non-motorized user counts may position observers 

differently based on the following:

• Non-motorized user volumes.

• Ability to observe non-motorized users.

• Available observers.

Alternatively, automated bicycle/pedestrian counting technologies that perform 

24-hour counts can be utilized. An example of summarized counts is shown in 

Table 1. The data are helpful in assessing volumes of non-motorized traffic and 

behavioral patterns.

If staff resources are limited, volunteers from stakeholder or community 

organizations (e.g., pedestrian or biking groups, members of the local chamber 

of commerce, etc.) can assist in collecting non-motorized traffic volumes. 
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 15

Additional information about conducting traffic counts can be obtained from 

the Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic Studies.

13

Figure 5. Non-Motorized Traffic Count Locations (Courtesy of Town of Duck, 

North Carolina).

Table 1. Example Non-Motorized Traffic Count Summary Table.

Section 4 

Traffic Counts

Along the Road Crossing the Road

Total

Traveling 

in Wrong 

Direction

East 

Bound

West 

Bound

At 

Crosswalk

Not at 

Crosswalk

Adult Bicyclist 4 2 1 3 10 2

Child Bicyclist 1 0 0 0 1 1

Adult 

Pedestrian 22 34 9 6 71 12

Chid Pedestrian 1 2 4 3 10 2

Speed Data

Considering vehicle speeds within the context of the roadway environment may 

be helpful in determining the risk to non-motorized users. Working with local 

law enforcement or automated data collection equipment, vehicle speed data 

can be collected in the field. Additional information about conducting speed 

studies can be obtained from the Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic 

Studies.14

13 Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE). Iowa State University. 

Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic Studies. Iowa DOT project TR-455. 

CTRE project 01-08. November 2002. Available: www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/

traffichandbook/index.htm

14 Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE). Iowa State University. 

Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic Studies. Iowa DOT project TR-455. 

CTRE project 01-08. November 2002. Available: www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/

traffichandbook/index.htm
16 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Inventories

Other data that may be helpful are inventories of specific facilities for nonmotorized users: shoulders, paths, trails, greenways/byways, sidewalks, or 

crossing conditions. Typically, the location, extents, condition, width, operating 

characteristics, and significant issues affecting non-motorized modes associated 

with these facilities should be recorded. Knowledge of the location and 

functionality of these facilities is helpful to fully understand potential problems 

for non-motorized users.

Quantitative Tools

Quantitative tools provide numeric measures of non-motorized user safety. The 

Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) and Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) models 

provide a numeric score and grade of bicycle and pedestrian facilities based on 

geometrics and other conditions, including lane width, vehicle speed, and traffic 

volume.15 The 2010 version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) also provides 

a multimodal level of service (LOS) approach that can be used to quantify the 

performance of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These tools can help to evaluate 

the suitability of a roadway for non-motorized use and can be utilized to assess 

how different improvements (either individually or cumulatively) will likely affect 

bicycle and/or pedestrian travel. In conjunction with other information—such as 

non-motorized trip and crash data—the results can be used to identify potential 

problem areas.

Some State DOTs have BLOS/PLOS/LOS scores and data maps available, allowing 

for identification of routes, corridors, and/or spot locations that are in need of 

further evaluation and improvement. A local agency may wish to contact the 

State DOT or LTAP/TTAP representative to see if this information is available or 

may look online or in the HCM for BLOS/PLOS/LOS calculators.16 One caution is 

that the models may not yield useful results for roadways with relatively low 

traffic volumes. For example, the PLOS model may not be useful for roadways 

ranging from those with an ADT below 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and a posted 

speed limit of 25 mph to those with an ADT below 2,000 vpd and a posted speed 

limit of 50 mph.

15 Florida Department of Transportation. Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Available: 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/2009FDOTQLOS_Handbook.

pdf

16 http://www.bikelib.org/roads/blos/losform.htm.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 17

Qualitative Data 

Behavioral Data

Behaviors of road users may contribute to safety problems. Common behaviors 

that have been identified as causal factors in crashes involving non-motorized 

users include the following:

• Walking or bicycling while intoxicated or impaired.

• Walking in the same direction as adjacent traffic.

• Bicycling in the opposite direction of adjacent traffic.

• Walking or bicycling at night with no lighting or reflective material.

• Driving without scanning for non-motorized users or awareness of 

potential conflicts.

• Motorized vehicles passing too closely to non-motorized users.

• Speeding or driving too fast for conditions to allow adequate stopping distance.

Behavioral data can be assembled from crash or citation data or from field 

observations. Field assessments, which aid in the evaluation of roadway user 

behaviors, are discussed in Section 2.1. Citation data may reveal behavioral 

trends that contribute to problems for non-motorized users.

Field Assessments

Field assessments can be used to collect other relevant data directly. A field 

assessment could be as simple as one person conducting site visits of locations 

to collect targeted data elements, such as the presence and quality of facilities 

for non-motorized users or as detailed as teams of reviewers conducting 

comprehensive reviews with formal checklists.

A cyclist is riding on the shoulder of a rural road against traffic. The roadway only has a paved 

shoulder on one side of the road. This promotes not only riding against traffic but also walking with 

traffic; both practices/behaviors are significant contributing factors in crashes.
18 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

The location of schools, stores, bus stops, train stations, and other nonmotorized trip generators is also important to understand potential route 

choice for non-motorized users and the safety implications associated with 

those routes. Awareness of future development and roadway improvements 

may also lend insight into programmed measures addressing non-motorized 

mobility and safety.

1.3 Engaging Stakeholders

Successfully addressing non-motorized safety in rural areas requires the 

involvement and support of a variety of people, examples of whom are provided in 

Table 2. The following are among the key considerations regarding stakeholders:

• Stakeholders should be involved early and regularly to be effective.

• Stakeholders should provide a connection to the local community.

• Stakeholders can become advocates and build local support for initiatives.

• Stakeholders can bring specific knowledge of the local conditions 

and behaviors.

Stakeholders can provide valuable insights on the safety concerns that are 

present along rural roadways affecting non-motorized users. They represent 

the “eyes on the street” and have a keen knowledge of many of the conditions 

and behaviors present that affect safety. There is no prescribed size for the 

stakeholder group. The practitioner will determine which stakeholders are 

invited to the table based on the issue.

Law enforcement personnel are particularly important stakeholders, as they 

have firsthand knowledge of conditions and behaviors that may contribute to 

the crash risk on local rural roads. Law enforcement collect data on violations 

and crashes that help to identify safety concerns related to non-motorized 

users. Also, law enforcement personnel will be able to provide information on 

potential enforcement countermeasures and provide useful input in determining 

engineering or education strategies.

Additionally, LTAP and TTAP centers, universities, and other research 

institutions that work on transportation safety issues may also be available to 

provide assistance.

Bringing the right agencies or individuals together will help foster coordination 

and collaboration, the sharing of resources, and momentum in making a 
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 19

commitment to improving non-motorized safety. Some of the ways to engage 

stakeholders include the following:

• Conduct a kickoff meeting and present data to stakeholders.

• Obtain stakeholder input through community meetings, interviews, surveys, 

or onsite discussions.

• Conduct a safety audit/assessment.

• Present the preliminary findings to stakeholders for additional input.

The continued participation of stakeholders will help guide an approach to find 

effective treatments that can encompass the 4 E’s of safety.

Table 2. Local/Rural Road Non-Motorized Safety Stakeholders.

Potential Stakeholders

EngineeringͧCounty Engineer, 

Road Superintendent

ͧDirector of Public Works

ͧTransportation Planner / Engineer

ͧFHWA Division Office

ͧ Local Engineering or Public 

Works Department

ͧCounty Highway Department

ͧState DOT Region or District Office

ͧBureau of Indian Affairs

Enforcement ͧChief of Police

ͧ Local/Tribal Police Department

ͧCounty Sheriff’s Department

ͧState Police/Patrol

EducationͧAdministrators/Teachers/PTA 

ͧPublic Safety Stakeholders (AAA, 

SafeKids, Operation Lifesaver, 

League of American Bicyclists, etc.)

ͧDriving Education and 

Training Professionals

ͧ Local Public Information Official

EMSͧEmergency Service Director

ͧ Local emergency service providers

ͧHospitals

ͧFire Chief

Other Stakeholders ͧSchool District (facilities and/

or transportation)

ͧ Local Planning and Zoning 

Department or Commission

ͧGovernor’s or State’s Highway 

Safety Office 

ͧ Local Agency Budgeting Office

ͧPlanning Organizations (Regional, 

Rural) / Regional Council of 

Governments

ͧ Local/Tribal Technical 

Assistance Program

ͧPark District/Authority and Public 

Land Managers (Local/ FMLA)

ͧCommunity Groups (Chamber of 

Commerce, Tourism Agencies, etc.)

ͧPedestrian/Biking groups

ͧ Local politicians/commissioners

ͧRailroads

ͧDepartments of Health
20 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

1.4 Organizing Data

Data are most beneficial when they can be easily understood by the user. 

Organizing and presenting data in a clear and concise manner aids in the process 

to define and understand the factors affecting safety. Summary tables and 

annotated maps are two effective methods to organize and present data.

Summary tables are a simple way to present data by location, crash data (e.g., 

crash types, crash severities, pavement conditions, lighting conditions, etc.), 

and other data (e.g., vehicular traffic volumes and speeds). Tabular crash data, 

as shown in the example in Table 3, can be simple by showing only the total 

number of crashes per location, or they can be more detailed (if available), 

showing the percentage breakdown for each crash attribute. Charts and graphs 

can also illustrate how various factors contribute to safety concerns.

Annotated maps and crash diagrams present a geographical perspective on the 

occurrence of crashes and other data within a study area. Annotated maps can 

range from a simple “push pin” map that identifies crash locations, as shown 

in Figure 6, to more detailed maps illustrating crash characteristics, anecdotal 

information from a conversation, and other data. For example, a map or aerial 

image can be annotated manually or electronically with crashes or other 

conditions affecting safety; these other conditions may include traffic volume 

data, speed data, and roadway condition data, such as severe curves and hills, 

areas of limited sight distance, and the presence of roadway debris or standing 

water on the roadway. Figure 7 illustrates a roadway condition diagram that 

a local practitioner can create to display available data. The diagram shows a 

schematic representation of the corridor of concern and displays pedestrian 

and bicycle crash information such as location and direction of travel, as well as 

motorized traffic volume data. Other data can also be displayed on a condition 

diagram, as needed.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 21

Table 3. Example Summary Table.

Location Yr.

Time of Day

Type of Collision with NonMotorized User 

Day 

Dawn/ Dusk Dark

Right Angle

Rear End

Left Turn

RigTur

South of the intersection of Main Street and Maple Avenue

‘05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

‘06 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

‘07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Intersection of Main Street and Birch Avenue

‘05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

‘06 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

‘07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Intersection of Main Street and Oak Terrace

‘05 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 

‘06 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

‘07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Intersection of Main Street and Chestnut Street

‘05 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 

‘06 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

‘07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Non-Motorized Crashes

4 1 1 4 0 0 0 

Percent 67 17 17 67 0 0 0 

Key: Severity: K (1) = killed, A (2) = incapacitating injury, B ( 3) = non-incapacitating evident inju
22 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Figure 6. Example Regional “Push Pin” Map Showing Non-Motorized Crash Locations.

Maps can also be used to engage stakeholders. Stakeholders can be invited to 

annotate concerns on a map during a meeting, which can then become part of 

the information used to assess the conditions facing non-motorized users.

Summary tables, annotated maps, and crash diagrams are useful when 

identifying trends in location (e.g., crash clusters or the lack of sufficient facilities 

between key points) and contributing crash factors, and they can help to define 

the extent of the problem. However, given the previously mentioned limitations 

in non-motorized crash data, it may not be possible to readily identify trends. It 

is important to understand these constraints and realize that a review of crash 

data alone is generally not sufficient to comprehensively identify and address 

non-motorized safety concerns.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 23 Figure 7. Condition Diagram Example in a Rural Town. Pedestrian Crashes: 1 Total = 1 Bicycle Crashes: 1 1 1 2 1 Total = 6 ADT (VPD): 3,970 3,970 3,970 3,970 3,970 3,970

Legend:

MainStreet

(2003‐2007)

(2010)

Town Limits

Oak Terrace

Maple

Avenue

Birch

Avenue

Chestnut

Street

BC

BC

(2003‐2007)

C

B

C

B*

C

B*

Town Limits

N

B    ‐ BicycleC    ‐ CarP    ‐ Pedestrian

*

    ‐ Wrong Way Travel

‐ Crash Diagram

‐ Movements at Crash Location

‐ Intersection Crash Location

‐ Non‐Intersection CrashLocation

‐ Signalized Intersection

‐ Movements involved inCollision

Side Swipe Side Swipe

Right Angle

Right Angle

B

P Right Angle

Right Angle

Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 25

2: Assessing Factors Affecting 

Non-Motorized Safety

2.1 Defining the Problem

Assembled non-motorized safety data should be used to define the extent of 

the problems, and/or the study area, before a more detailed data analysis is 

conducted. Summary tables, annotated maps, and crash diagrams are useful 

in identifying not only crash locations but also crash trends and areas of higher 

risk based on similar roadway and user characteristics to those experiencing 

crashes. The study area may also be defined by project opportunities, such 

as including non-motorized safety improvement into scheduled projects (e.g., 

resurfacing). The study area can exist at three different scales: spot location, 

corridor, or network. The following information is intended to help readers 

identify the appropriate study area for a more detailed analysis:

Spot Locations

A spot location problem exists where there is 

one location (or several unrelated locations) 

experiencing safety-related concerns or 

crashes. Spot locations may include crossings, 

intersections, curves, or locations of activity, 

such as schools or markets.

Corridor

A corridor problem exists when multiple 

locations on a segment of roadway experience 

safety concerns or crashes. Those safety 

concerns or crashes may be varied in nature or 

may include one or more unifying factors.

Network

The network problem exists when similar types 

of crashes are occurring at multiple locations on 

different roadway corridors, and the emerging 

safety concerns appear to be related in nature.

The process of reviewing the data may indicate 

issues associated with one or more of the 

study area types. If the issues and common 

Spot Location Example: A 

specific trail crossing or 

a road crossing near an 

area with high pedestrian 

and bicycle activity.

Corridor Example: A 

segment of rural road 

with limited space for 

non-motorized users.

Network Example: An 

area with dispersed 

non-motorized activity. 

Consider non-motorized 

crashes on the roadway 

network in a jurisdiction.
26 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

risk factors identified through crashes encompass more than one study area, 

specific manageable actions or projects may be developed at the appropriate 

scale to address the most pressing safety concerns in each area. Jurisdictions 

experiencing similar crash types or issues on a larger scale (i.e., at the corridor 

or network level) may benefit from systemic improvements.

2.2 Analyzing Data

Typically, the detailed analysis consists of two parts: an in-office analysis of 

data to determine the crash trends and safety issues, and a field assessment to 

provide a more complete understanding of the data and the factors affecting 

non-motorized safety.

In-office Data Review

The purpose of the in-office data review is to develop a comprehensive summary 

of crash types and locations that allow reviewers to identify possible crash 

trends and study areas for issue identification and possible countermeasure 

selection and implementation. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool 

(PBCAT) can be used to help facilitate the crash data analysis. PBCAT is a crashtyping software that assists practitioners with analyzing crash data by creating 

a database containing details about crashes between motor vehicles and 

pedestrians or bicyclists. PBCAT can be used to identify, organize, and analyze 

crashes by location, type, severity, time of day, prevailing conditions, user age, 

and other crash-related factors that are helpful in identifying crash trends.

If multiple data sets are available, they can be used to help identify crash trends 

or common characteristics. For example, if crash and traffic data for nonmotorized users are available, then these can be used to determine crash rates. 

Crash rates are the ratio of non-motorized crash frequency (in crashes per year) 

to exposure (the number of non-motorized users). Additional information on 

crash analysis procedures can be found in Road Safety Information Analysis: A 

Manual for Local Rural Road Owners.

17

Assessing Conditions in the Field

Available data may not provide a complete picture of conditions and behaviors 

that affect non-motorized user safety. Crashes may go unreported or reported 

crashes may be infrequent or scattered. A field assessment should be conducted 

to investigate crash trends identified in the in-office analysis and identify 

17 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasaxx1210/
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 27

additional factors that may contribute to crashes involving non-motorized users. 

Conditions to be reviewed as part of a field visit include the following:

• Presence, visibility, and condition of signs and pavement markings that pertain 

to non-motorized users.

• Expectancy of non-motorized users by a motorist.

• Space, or lack thereof, shared by motorized and non-motorized traffic.

• Visibility of all road users with respect to each other.

• Quality and conditions of facilities used by non-motorized users.

• Speed of motorized traffic.

• Volume of motorized and non-motorized traffic.

• Composition of traffic (for example trucks, recreational vehicles, etc.).

• Presence and quality of street lighting.

• Conspicuity of crossings and motorist yielding to pedestrians or cyclists 

at crossings.

Local practitioners may engage a group of stakeholders to investigate conditions 

in the field. There are two basic types of field assessments for investigating nonmotorized safety: walkability/bikeability assessments and road safety audits.

Walkability and Bikeability Assessments

Walkability and bikeability assessments serve to identify the characteristics and 

conditions that affect non-motorized mobility and safety. Most assessments can 

be conducted by a group of local stakeholders with a range of knowledge or 

experience. The information collected during the assessments can be used as 

the basis for more in-depth analysis of issues and selection of countermeasures 

by local practitioners. Materials to conduct walkability and/or bikeability 

assessments, including checklist forms, are available online.18,19 These checklists 

can be useful in providing guidance on conditions to look for during a field 

assessment. Published pedestrian and bicycle checklists can be modified for use 

with other non-motorized transportation.

Road Safety Audits

Road safety audits (RSAs) are a formal examination of an existing facility or 

future roadway plan/project that is conducted by an independent, experienced, 

18 http://www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=12

19 http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=3
28 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

and multidisciplinary team. They are a proven safety tool used to evaluate 

safety and to identify opportunities for improvement. RSAs involve participants 

walking or bicycling the study area, observing operational behaviors, talking 

with those who use the facilities on a regular basis, and developing a more 

complete understanding of the facility’s existing mobility, access, surrounding 

land use, and operational context. RSAs can result in enhanced safety by 

allowing participants to carefully consider situations presented to all roadway 

users under variable conditions, including time of day (daylight vs. darkness), 

weather (e.g., clear, rain, snow, ice, etc.), peak/non-peak travel, and major 

events (e.g., sporting events, festivals, etc). Though RSAs consider all road users, 

an RSA may be initiated to specifically address non-motorized safety or crashes.

The RSA process may be employed on any type of facility and during any stage 

of the project development process. RSAs may be conducted proactively to 

identify conditions that present potential safety hazards or reactively to evaluate 

conditions and identify countermeasures along roadways that have exhibited a 

significant crash history.

Conducting an RSA usually does not require a large investment of time or money. 

An RSA typically takes one to three days to conduct, depending on the study 

area. By gaining a better understanding of the safety implications of roadway 

and roadside features, RSAs can be used to prioritize locations with safety 

concerns, helping to identify the best use for funding. Other benefits include 

encouraging multidisciplinary collaboration beyond the RSA and promoting 

a better understanding of roadway user needs and safety. RSA resources can 

be found on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Web site20, including 

guidance for conducting pedestrian-21 and bicycle-oriented RSAs to ensure that 

the needs of these non-motorized user groups are sufficiently considered in the 

RSA process.

2.3 Prioritizing Concerns

Prioritizing non-motorized safety concerns will help a local agency in addressing 

its most pressing safety problems. In general, safety concerns associated with 

frequent crashes and higher crash severity levels are given greater priority. 

If reliable crash data are available, prioritization can be based on total crash 

frequency or crash rate (if non-motorized traffic volume data are available). 

20 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/documents/FHWA_SA_06_06.pdf

21 http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.pdf
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 29

Locations or crash types with the higher crash frequency or crash rate will have 

a higher priority.

When reliable crash data are not available, the likely frequency and severity 

of crashes associated with each safety concern can be qualitatively estimated 

and used to prioritize locations. Expected crash frequency can be qualitatively 

estimated on the basis of exposure (i.e., the number of non-motorized users that 

would likely be exposed to the identified safety issue) and probability (i.e., the 

likelihood that a crash would result from the identified safety issue). Expected 

crash severity can be qualitatively estimated on the basis of factors, such as 

anticipated motor vehicle speeds.

These two risk elements (frequency and severity) are then correlated to obtain 

a qualitative risk assessment ranging from lowest to highest, as shown in Table 

4, which can assist in prioritization of non-motorized safety concerns. For 

example, potential crash severity can be related to potential crash frequency 

as presented in Figure 2. A similar categorization can be considered for crash 

frequency correlated with non-motorized traffic volumes.

Table 4. Prioritization Matrix.

Potential Crash 

Frequency

Potential Crash Injury Severity

Minor Moderate Serious Fatal

Frequent High High Highest Highest

Occasional Moderate Moderate High Highest

Infrequent Low Low Moderately High

Rare Lowest Low Moderate High

This qualitative assessment should be conducted by individuals who are familiar 

with the factors that affect crash frequency and severity. Local agencies should 

consult an engineer or other transportation professional when considering 

safety improvements. The State DOT and the LTAP or TTAP can provide assistance 

when assessing the risk of non-motorized users.

Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 31

3: Selecting and Implementing Countermeasures

3.1 Selecting Countermeasures

Selecting the appropriate countermeasures to address non-motorized safety 

on rural roads can be a challenge. Countermeasures should address specific 

infrastructure and behavioral safety concerns identified through an analysis of 

data, information obtained through field assessments, and stakeholder input. 

If needed, assistance on effective countermeasure selection may be obtained 

from State DOTs or by contacting the appropriate LTAP Center.

Listed below are some important considerations when selecting 

countermeasures:

1. The extent of the problem (spot location, corridor, or network). If the 

problem is at a spot location, countermeasure selection will be focused on 

the specific locational issues, such as installing a marked crosswalk with 

appropriate advance signage at a crossing that generates high volume of 

non-motorized users. For corridor or network areas, countermeasures 

that address common crash or infrastructure type may be selected to 

systematically address the risk.

2. The safety of all roadway users. Projects to improve the safety of 

motorized users offer an excellent opportunity to address non-motorized 

safety, as well. These projects may be intended to address a safety concern 

of motorized traffic or could involve programmed maintenance projects, 

such as resurfacing. Selecting countermeasures that are compatible with 

the existing project can help an agency to overcome funding challenges for 

non-motorized safety projects and enable it to address the non-motorized 

safety issue.

3. Proposed countermeasures must be appropriate for the roadway 

conditions and the environment. Although a countermeasure can address 

a given safety issue, it may not be appropriate when environmental issues 

are considered. For example, a marked crossing may be appropriate on 

a two-lane rural road through a rural village, where vehicle speeds are 

relatively lower, but probably will not be appropriate on a two-lane section 

of road through an undeveloped area where vehicles speeds are relatively 

high and motorists’ expectancy of encountering a crossing is low unless 

other measures are included as well.

4. Behavioral considerations. Addressing the safety of non-motorized users 

requires a coordinated application of countermeasures consisting of the 

4 E’s of safety, when appropriate. Consideration should be given to the 

causes of the safety issue—if it is behavior (speeding), then behavioral 

countermeasures need to be employed.
32 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

5. The ability to apply countermeasures in stages. Selecting countermeasures 

that can be implemented in near, mid, and long range timeframes provides 

opportunities for the immediate implementation of some countermeasures 

to address certain safety issues before longer-range measures are 

implemented. Many engineering measures require a greater investment 

and more time to implement; therefore, deploying short-term measures, 

such as improved signage and pavement markings, supplemented with 

education and enforcement efforts may improve safety until the more 

costly engineering measures can be constructed.

Some examples of countermeasures for addressing non-motorized safety on 

local rural roads are presented for all 4 E’s.

Engineering

Engineering measures to improve non-motorized safety on local rural roads are 

designed to perform one of the following functions:22

1. Eliminate conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users.

2. Reduce the potential for a conflict.

3. Reduce the severity of a conflict.

Conflicts may occur when motorized and non-motorized users cross paths, such 

as at intersections, or are on parallel paths, such as traveling along the same 

road. Eliminating conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users may 

provide the greatest benefit to non-motorized users but may not be feasible due 

to right-of-way or funding constraints. A typical countermeasure that eliminates 

conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users is a separated shared use 

path. When conflicts cannot be eliminated, measures to reduce the potential for 

a conflict between motorized and non-motorized users should be considered. 

These measures include employing signage to alert motorists of the presence of 

a crossing utilized by non-motorized users or providing separated space along 

the roadway. The severity of a conflict can be reduced through the control of 

speeds through signage or changes to the physical character of the roadway. 

Countermeasures that reduce the potential of a conflict and those that reduce 

the severity of a conflict can be deployed simultaneously to enhance safety. The 

engineering countermeasures are presented in three sections:

• Addressing safety at point locations (i.e., at crossings).

22 NCHRP Synthesis 321: Roadway Safety Tools for Local Agencies. Available: http://

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09027/resources/NCHRP%20

Syn%20321%20Roadway%20Safety%20Tools%20for%20Local%20Agencies.pdf.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 33

• Addressing safety along corridors.

• Addressing speeding.

Addressing Safety at Point Locations (Crossings)

A crossing is an obvious point of potential conflict between road users. Shortrange measures can be implemented before longer-range countermeasures 

are deployed at crossings. Traffic control devices (e.g., signs and beacons) can 

be deployed quickly at and often in advance of a crossing to inform motorists 

and non-motorized users alike of the presence of a crossing and the potential 

for conflict. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides 

guidance on applicable traffic control devices that can be used at non-motorized 

crossings. The MUTCD also describes pavement markings that can be used for 

non-motorized crossings or crosswalks. Selection of the appropriate traffic 

control devices and pavement markings to address non-motorized safety is 

dependent on several factors, including non-motorized volume, vehicle speed, 

traffic volume, and crossing distance. For example, in rural areas it may not 

always be advisable to “mark” a crosswalk. Table 5 contains information from a 

study conducted by FHWA providing guidance regarding appropriate conditions 

for marking a crosswalk based on the number of lanes, vehicle ADT, and posted 

speed.23 For example, a two-lane roadway with an ADT of 4,500 vpd and a 

speed limit of 40 mph may be a possible candidate for a marked crossing, but it 

would be preferable (noted as “P” in the table) to include other treatments in 

combination with the marked crossing, such as a pedestrian knockdown sign or 

a pedestrian hybrid beacon. In rural areas, crosswalks are typically only applied 

on low-speed roadways (i.e., those with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or less).

23 Zegeer, C. V., Stewart, R., Huang, H., and Lagerwey, P., “Safety Effects of Marked 

Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and 

Recommended Guidelines.” FHWA-RD-01-075, McLean, Va., Federal Highway 

Administration, (2002).

In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Sign. Pedestrian hybrid beacon (Source: FHWA 

Proven Safety Countermeasures).
34 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 5. Crosswalk Marking Guidance for Roadways < 9,000 vpd (from 

Zegeer et al., 2005)

Roadway Type (Number of Travel Lanes and Median 

Type)

Speed Limit (MPH)

<30 35 40

2 Lanes C C P

3 Lanes C C P

Multilane (4 or More Lanes) With Raised Median C C P

Multilane (4 or More Lanes) Without Raised Median C P N

C = Candidate site for marked crosswalks.

P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalk markings are 

added without other pedestrian facility enhancements.

N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, and pedestrian crash risk may increase 

when providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such 

as traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted or other substantial 

crossing improvements to increase crossing safety.

Other treatments that can be used to enhance a crossing are described in Table 

9 in Appendix A.

Addressing Safety Along Roadways

Countermeasures that address non-motorized safety along roadways are 

generally directed where motorized and non-motorized users share the roadway. 

A lack of dedicated space for non-motorized users is typically encountered in 

rural, undeveloped areas. Short-range countermeasures that can be applied 

include signing to alert motorists of the presence of non-motorized users. For 

example, a Share the Road plaque can be used in conjunction with a warning 

sign to alert drivers of the presence of a particular mode (e.g., bicycles or horsedrawn vehicles). The MUTCD provides guidance on applicable signs that can be 

used along roadways for non-motorized users that is incorporated throughout 

the document. Some examples of sections that apply to non-motorized use are 

sections 2C.49, 2C.60, 5C.09 7B.08, and 9B.01.

Engineering measures to address a lack of dedicated space for non-motorized 

users include restriping space for non-motorized users on the roadway (if 

pavement width is adequate), creating or widening paved shoulders, or creating 

a separated parallel path for non-motorized users. While creating or widening 

shoulders will have safety benefits for motorized and non-motorized traffic alike, 

it may be more economically feasible to construct a separated, parallel shared 

use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. Shared use paths, which are designed to 

carry lighter loads, cost less to construct than shoulders that are designed for 

heavy loads.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 35

 “Roadway characteristics such as the absence of sidewalks, higher traffic volume, higher vehicle 

speed, and smaller width of unpaved shoulder increase the likelihood that a walking-along-roadway 

pedestrian crash will occur.”24 It may be more economically feasible to construct a separated 

parallel path for pedestrians and bicyclists, which are designed to carry lighter loads, than shoulders 

designed for heavy loads.

The FHWA July 10, 2008 Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and 

Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures offers guidance for the 

application of shoulders.25 For rural highways in less developed areas that 

have occasional pedestrian traffic, walkable shoulders of at least four feet are 

recommended on both sides of the roadway.

The New York State DOT (NYSDOT) has implemented a policy to make 

shoulders walkable. In order to address the requirement to give pedestrians full 

consideration on all Federal-aid projects, the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual 

specifies that shoulders should be designed to be pedestrian friendly when 

acting as a pedestrian facility. The NYSDOT manual states that, when pedestrian 

facilities are warranted, the preferred facility for pedestrian travel along a road 

is a sidewalk.26 However, when it is necessary to design shoulders as walkways, 

the following questions should be considered:

• Is it practical for pedestrians to walk facing traffic?

• Are pedestrians able to safely cross the road?

• If one of the above conditions cannot be met, then provisions for pedestrians 

to walk in either direction along one side of the road should be considered.

NYSDOT policy also states that if shoulders are designed for pedestrians to walk 

facing traffic, then they should have a minimum width of four feet and should be 

24 McMahon, et.al. Transportation Research Record 1674. Analysis of Factors 

Contributing to “Walking Along Roadway” Crashes.

25 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/.

26 https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm.
36 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

accompanied by pedestrian crossings in order to provide access to the opposite 

side of the roadway. Shoulders that are designed for pedestrians to walk in 

either direction should have a minimum width of five feet.

Rural areas with existing shoulders are often used to accommodate nonmotorized travel. To improve safety for a run off the road vehicle, many States 

have adopted policy on edgeline rumble strips and rumble stripes. These features 

can have an adverse effect on non-motorized travel, specifically bicyclists and 

horse-and-buggies. FHWA’s rumble strip polices affect shoulder, edgeline, and 

centerline rumble strip use.27 Some of the recommendations include using 

continuous, milled centerline, edgeline, and shoulder rumble strips; the addition 

of a four-foot paved shoulder to extend beyond the rumble strip; and considering 

all road users and the potential effects that rumble strips may have on them. 

The Virginia DOT’s policy specifies that an intermittent shoulder rumble strip 

should be used to provide accessibility to bicyclists.

The rumble stripe shown is combined with the edge line pavement marking allowing space on the 

shoulder for non-motorized use. (Photo courtesy of http://goingeast.ca/blog)

An intermittent pattern provides 12-foot gaps between 48-foot sections of 

rumble strips for bicyclists to maneuver and leave the shoulder (e.g., to make a 

turn). A minimum four-foot shoulder outside of the rumble strip is provided. If 

high volumes of bicycle or horse-drawn vehicle traffic are present or expected, 

a minimum of five-foot paved shoulder outside of the rumble strip is desirable. 

This is particularly needed if there are objects close to the roadway edge, such 

as guardrail. When roadway grades exceed six percent, the gaps are increased to 

16 feet. By helping to prevent shoulder encroachments, edgeline rumbles strips 

can prevent crashes between motorized and non-motorized users. Additional 

27 Federal Highway Administration. Rumble Strips and Stripes. Available: http://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 37

details, as well as other treatments that can be used to enhance non-motorized 

travel along a local rural road, are described in Table 10 in Appendix A.

Addressing Speeding 

Speeding affects the severity of motorized/

non-motorized crashes. Controlling speeding 

through small, rural villages—where nonmotorized travel may be frequent—may be 

a priority for a community. The area where 

drivers are expected to reduce speeds from the 

rural, undeveloped section of the roadway to 

the developed area is known as the “transition 

zone” (see Figure 8). The objective of a transition 

zone is for vehicle speed to be reduced to the 

point where the lower speed limit is reached 

upon entering the village. For this to be 

effective, this may require the following:

• Treatments in advance of the transition zone, 

called the “approach zone” (see Figure 8), 

to warn motorists of the downstream speed 

reduction. Warning signs are typical measures 

used in the approach zone.

• Physical measures to further reduce the 

speed of entering motorized vehicles in the 

transition zone. Typical measures used in 

the transition zone may include narrowing of 

roads, roundabouts, road diets (reducing the 

number of through lanes), curb extensions, 

raised medians, and gateway treatments.

• Additional measures in the developed area or rural village to sustain the lower 

speed.28

The speed reduction measures applied to a village are referred to as “traffic 

calming,” which is defined as “the combination of mainly physical measures 

that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, 

and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.”29 Traffic calming 

28 NCHRP Synthesis 412: Speed Reduction Techniques for Rural High-to-Low Speed 

Transitions. Transportation Research Board. 2011.

29 Traffic Calming Definition. Lockwood, I. ITE Journal, Washington, D.C., July 1997.

“Addressing speed 

through law enforcement 

alone often leads to 

temporary compliance 

at a significant cost. A 

more permanent way 

to reinforce the need to 

reduce speed is to change 

the look and feel of the 

road by installing traffic 

calming treatments that 

communicate to drivers 

that the function of the 

roadway is changing.”

FHWA TechBrief: Traffic 

Calming on Main 

Roads Through Rural 

Communities (http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/

publications/research/

safety/08067/ )
38 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

encourages self-enforcing, slower, and more uniform vehicle speeds. Traffic 

calming measures are typically applied on low-speed roadways (i.e., those with 

a posted speed limit of 40 mph or less) in “urbanized areas.” Caution should be 

used when using traffic calming devices because they are not applicable on all 

types of roadways and may in fact increase crashes on some rural roads. Listed 

in Appendix A are several resources that can be consulted that address speeding 

in rural communities.

Figure 8. Transition Zone and Approaching Zone Concept (Derived from NCHRP Synthesis 

412).28

Examples of approach and transition zone speed reduction measures that are 

applicable to rural local roads are shown in Table 10 in Appendix A. Many of 

these treatments can be tested through the use of temporary measures (e.g., 

cones or delineators) to assess the real-time effectiveness before full-scale 

implementation of a measure.

Appendix A has a more comprehensive list of countermeasures, highlighting 

description, application, cost for implementation and crash modification 

factor (CMF), when appropriate. A CMF is a multiplicative factor used to 

determine the expected change in the number of crashes after implementing 

a specific countermeasure at a specific site. Appendix B offers resources 

with countermeasures that address non-motorized safety issues and should 

be consulted when considering safety treatments. An engineer from the 

county, State DOT, or LTAP Center should be consulted when selecting and/or 

implementing engineering countermeasures.

Measures 

to Reduce 

Speeds
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 39

Education

Education and public outreach can be quickly 

implemented to improve non-motorized safety. 

Public outreach campaigns targeting unsafe 

behaviors and other issues can increase public 

awareness of non-motorized safety. Education 

efforts that inform and reinforce safe and proper 

roadway use for motorized and non-motorized 

users may help create a safer environment. 

Driver education courses used to teach new 

drivers about safe and legal motor vehicle 

operation can also be used to discuss situational behaviors when encountering 

non-motorized users. Similarly, bicycling courses also teach children and adults 

about safe and legal riding practices. Potential methods of transferring this 

information include the following:

• Hands-on training or presentations at community events, faith-based 

gatherings, and through other local organizations.

• Postings on the internet, brochures at public gatherings and other venues, 

and other local media.

• School-based education programs directed at students.

These events can be programmed on a local community or non-motorized safety 

calendar. The following are key messages that address behaviors contributing to 

crashes in rural areas and can be communicated as part of an education program:

• Do not speed – The potential severity of a crash relates directly to vehicle 

speed. Speed also affects the ability of motorists and non-motorized users 

to make eye contact and establish intent and the ability to prevent a crash by 

stopping before impact.

• Watch for non-motorized users – Motorists should be aware that nonmotorized users may be traveling along the roadway or crossing the roadway 

and have the ability to react safely to such a situation.

• Walk facing traffic – A Study of Fatal Pedestrian Crashes in Florida demonstrates 

that the likelihood of a crash is reduced by a factor of between 1.5 to 4 times 

when walking facing traffic. The research reveals a disproportionate ratio of 

“pedestrian walking along the roadway” crashes involve pedestrians walking 

with traffic (approximately 3 to 1).

NCHRP Report 622: 

Effectiveness of Behavioral 

Highway Safety 

Countermeasures provides 

a thorough description 

of countermeasures that 

may help to address 

behavioral concerns.
40 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

• Bike in the direction of vehicle travel (i.e., on the right side of the road) – 

Cyclists may contribute to crashes by riding the wrong-way (against traffic). 

The Hunter et al. study shows that nearly one-third (32 percent) of all cyclist 

collisions in a national study were associated with riding against traffic; for 

intersection collisions, the proportion was 42 percent.

• Wear retroreflective clothing or use a light – Walking during periods of 

darkness increases the risk of fatality by about seven times. Even when 

wearing brightly colored clothes, visibility at night without lighting or reflective 

materials often does not allow enough time to be seen by a driver, especially 

at higher speeds.30

• Do not drive/bike/walk distracted – The attention of all roadway users should 

be on the road. Studies indicate that driving while drowsy increases a driver’s 

crash or near-crash risk by four to six times. Complex secondary tasks—those 

tasks that involve multiple glances away from the road or multiple button 

presses—increase crash risk by three times. Moderate secondary tasks—those 

tasks that involve less than two glances away from the road or two button 

presses—increase crash risk by two times that of baseline driving.31 These 

distracted behaviors may also be a targeted enforcement area in some States.

Several agencies provide educational materials for non-motorized user’s safety, 

including the following:

• The National Center for Safe Routes to School guide Teaching Children to Walk 

Safely as they Grow and Develop. This guide provides information to help 

parents and caregivers understand how children learn, along with resources 

to teach them pedestrian safety skills.32

30 Sullivan, J. and M. Flannagan. Implications of Fatal and Nonfatal Crashes for Adaptive 

Headlighting. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, Report No. UMTRI-2006-1, April 2006. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/

bitstream/2027.42/58714/1/99595.pdf

31 Klauer, et.al. (2006). The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An 

Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data. Washington, D.C. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

32 National Center for Safe Routes to School. Teaching Children to Walk Safely as they 

Grow and Develop. Available: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/sites/default/files/

TeachingChildrentoWalkSafely.pdf.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 41

• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) various 

pedestrian and bicycle safety materials for adult English language learners, 

including the Walk and Bike Safely Student Workbook. The materials are split 

into beginner and intermediate levels and include a teacher’s guide, adult 

workbooks, and video and audio clips.33

• Stepping Out is educational material created by NHTSA and is aimed at older 

adults. The materials include a Web site and printable brochure.34

• The FHWA Bicycle Safety Educational Resource Center provides a guidebook 

for creating your own bicycle safety program and a database of bicycle safety 

resource materials.35

Education efforts are more effective in changing behavior when they are 

conducted in conjunction with law enforcement strategies.

Enforcement

Laws are intended to govern the operation of the roadway by all road users. 

Enforcing the “rules of the road” can help to create a safer environment for 

all road users. Effective enforcement begins with education strategies to 

inform both law enforcement officials and the general public of the rights and 

responsibilities of all roadway users, specifically as they relate to non-motorized 

users. As part of an enforcement effort, the University of New Mexico created 

a brochure highlighting those statutes related to pedestrian safety.36 The basic 

traffic laws that govern the interactions between motorized and non-motorized 

users can be found in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC), which most States have 

adopted in whole or in part.

33 NHTSA. English as a Second Language Teachers and Learners. Available: http://www.

nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Pedestrians/For+English+as+Second+Language+(ESL)+Teach

ers+and+Learners.

34 NHTSA. Stepping Out. Available: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/olddrive/

SteppingOut/index.html.

35 FHWA. Bicycle Safety Educational Resource Center. Available: http://www.

bicyclinginfo.org/education/resource/fhwa.html?/ee/fhwa.html.

36 University of New Mexico. Pedestrian Safety Enforcement: Public Awareness. 

Available: http://hsc.unm.edu/som/programs/cipre/PSE_P.shtml
42 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

An adult school crossing guard stops traffic on a two-lane road though a rural community to allow 

children to safely cross the street.

Staffing and funding constraints may limit the ability of a rural law enforcement 

agency to provide comprehensive or sustained enforcement strategies. For this 

reason, enforcement efforts should target the following:

• Specific, frequent, or high-risk behaviors identified as a safety concern.

• Vehicle speeds at times when traffic conditions are critical (e.g., school start and 

dismissal in active school zones or weekends in recreational areas), especially 

on high-speed roads, to encourage safe behavior among motorized users.

Law enforcement officers should be engaged throughout the process of 

addressing safety. They can provide a critical assessment of safety issues, 

have a good understanding of the potential positive and negative effects of 

countermeasures, implement enforcement campaigns, and are good educators 

of traffic safety practices. Strategies to support the efforts of law enforcement 

include the following:

• Training adult school crossing guards to control potentially conflicting 

vehicular and pedestrian or cyclist traffic.

• Deploying speed trailers and speed feedback signs to control the speed of 

motorized vehicles in active non-motorized areas where speeds are excessive.

Emergency Medical Services

The remote nature of many rural communities, coupled with low density of 

medical facilities, plays a major role in limiting the ability to provide timely 

medical treatment to people injured in a crash. The “golden hour” is defined as 

the window of time in which the lives of the majority of critically injured trauma 

patients can be saved, if definitive treatment is provided. This window of time is 
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 43

60 minutes from the moment of injury through life-saving medical procedures. 

Factors contributing to response time include the ability of others to identify a 

crash and to notify emergency personnel, the ability of emergency personnel to 

quickly respond to the scene, and the ability to quickly transport each victim to 

a trauma center. Strategies to improve emergency medical services’ ability to 

respond should be considered. This may include improving cell phone coverage 

(for notification), along with global positioning system (GPS) assisted cell phone 

location. Emergency services personnel should be engaged throughout the 

process of addressing safety.

3.2 Examples of Countermeasure Selection on 

Rural Roads

This section illustrates potential methods of addressing non-motorized safety in 

rural areas. Three rural example scenarios are described, including conditions, 

issues, and potential countermeasures (from Tables 8, 9, and 10) that can 

be implemented. Short-range measures can be applied to address an issue 

so that improvements can be quickly realized. Intermediate or long-range 

improvements can be implemented as funding or other project opportunities 

become available.

Example 1: High Speeds in an Active Pedestrian / Bicycle Zone: 

Addressing Issues at Spot Locations and Short Corridors

Rural road with no shoulder entering an area with pedestrian/bicycle activity.

A straight rural road with no shoulder and a posted speed of 45 mph enters an 

area active with pedestrians and cyclists. This area has a posted speed of 35 

mph. Adjacent to the roadway is a school, and across the street is a park. There 

is information indicating some motorists are traveling 55 mph through the 35 

mph zone. There are few gaps in traffic during student drop-off and pick-up at 
44 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

the school. Some children from nearby residences walk along the road to and 

from school.

Short-range measures can be implemented rather quickly at this type of location 

and can have an immediate positive effect.

• Utilize a school crossing guard during the peak period of pedestrian and 

bicycle activity. States and often local jurisdictions may have a crossing guard 

course in which volunteers may learn how to create gaps for children to cross 

the road safely.

• Conduct targeted enforcement in the 35 mph zone to reduce motorist 

speeds during the peak period of non-motorized activity.

• Install Reduced Speed Limit Ahead signs and post the speed zone signs on 

both sides of the road.

• Install pedestrian warning signs in the built-up, residential zone (see Table 9).

• Educate students on safe walking, bicycling, and crossing practices.

• Provide safe riding and driver safety tips on various local Web sites and 

articles in various media outlets.

Mid-range measures should be implemented to help create a lasting effect 

on non-motorized safety, as it may be difficult to sustain the short-range 

enforcement of the speed zone.

• Install solar-powered school zone flashers that are activated during school 

start and dismissal periods to manage motorized vehicle speeds (see Table 9).

• Install roadway (or transverse) rumble strips to alert motorists of the reduced 

speed zone if previous measures are not effective.

Long-range measures can be applied to help change the nature of the roadway 

in the area with high non-motorized activity, which should alert motorists that 

conditions have changed and to reduce speed.

• Construct a shared use path parallel to the roadway that serves children from 

neighboring residential areas who walk or ride to and from school (see Table 8). 

Areas where pedestrian activity and cycling activity are high would potentially 

generate multiple street crossings, and non-motorized users would benefit 

from separated space from motorized users and the promoting of walking 

against traffic/riding with traffic.

• Install gateway treatments to encourage slower motorized-vehicle speeds 

and increase driver expectancy of pedestrians and bicyclists in the area (see 

Table 10).
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 45

Example 2: Rural Road with Shared Use Path / Shoulder: Corridor 

through a Rural Village

A shared use path becomes a roadway shoulder along a half-mile stretch of 

two-lane roadway through a rural community that attracts seasonal visitors. 

The path and shoulder are intended for shared use by pedestrians, cyclists, and 

in-line skaters. Safety issues contributing to conflicts between all road users 

include the following:

• Frequent wrong-way facility use (i.e., pedestrians walking with traffic and 

cyclists riding against traffic).

• A lack of separation between modes due to limited available width of 

the shoulder.

• Frequent midblock pedestrian crossings.

• Inconspicuous crossing locations.

The following countermeasures can be applied to improve safety:

Short-range measures can also affect behavior. Restriping crossings based on 

pedestrian desire lines can be very effective; however, these locations should be 

evaluated to determine safety.

• Educate the population about correct biking and walking practices (e.g., the 

directional use of shoulders) through community publications, Web sites, 

and bulletins.

• Install signing and pavement markings to reinforce the correct direction of 

travel for cyclists (see Table 8).

A pedestrian walking with the flow of traffic 

along the shoulder.

Bicycle signage and pavement markings.
46 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

• Study desire line crossing locations to ensure crossings are placed in the 

safest possible locations that meet crossing demand.

• Restripe existing crossings / stripe new crossings with retro-reflective 

material after desire lines have been studied (see Table 9).

Mid-range and long-range measures that separate pedestrian and bicyclist 

traffic will prove to be the most effective given the user volumes and the fact 

that much of the population consists of tourists who may be more difficult to 

reach through education measures.

• Install raised medians at high-conflict crossings to provide a refuge for 

pedestrians, pedestrian warning signs with flashing beacons, or a combination 

thereof (see Table 9).

Long-range 

• Install sidewalks along the roadway (creating a road cross section consisting 

of adequate sidewalks, bike lanes, and narrow vehicle lanes (see Table 8)).

Example 3: Rural Road without Shoulders: Addressing NetworkWide Issues 

A rural road where there is no shoulder.

Most rural roads in a county lack paved or graded shoulders. Bicyclists, 

pedestrians, and farm vehicles all share the travel lane with motor vehicles, 

resulting in large speed differentials and increased exposure for the slower 

roadway users.

There are several measures that can be applied at this typical location.

Short-range

• Determine primary travel routes or primary routes of concern for nonmotorized users. Apply the measures described below to these routes.

• Mow and grade unpaved shoulders facilitating pedestrian travel.
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 47

• Install Share the Road plaques in conjunction with warning signs to alert 

motorists of the presence of non-motorized users (see Table 8). Consider sign 

placement as follows:

ͧ Near major routes where there are a higher volumes of entering traffic.

ͧ At locations where sight distance and expectancy of encountering a nonmotorized user may be limited (e.g., in advance of curves, both horizontal 

and vertical).

ͧ On roadways used by cyclists and with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or 

less, install Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs in conjunction with shared 

lane markings.

• Educate locals on the safe walking and riding practices of the road. This includes 

educating motorists on applicable laws regarding the rights of non-motorized 

users. Some States may even have specific laws that govern the interaction 

of motorized and non-motorized roadway users. For example, some States 

have passed a three-foot passing law (e.g., Maine, Nevada, Arizona, Kansas, 

Georgia, and Colorado) that states a driver must give a cyclist or pedestrian a 

minimum of three feet when passing. In some instances, the law also permits 

the yellow line to be crossed when passing a non-motorized user.

Long-range

• Pave graded shoulders to provide a bikeable surface and separated space 

for non-motorized users (see Table 8). Adding shoulders benefits both 

motorized and non-motorized users. In rural areas, paved shoulders provide 

additional space for the movement of slow-moving vehicles such as farm 

equipment. Paved shoulders also reduce roadway departure crashes by 

providing a recoverable area for vehicles leaving the roadway. Furthermore, 

the additional pavement width stabilizes the edge of pavement, preventing 

premature failure of the pavement, which reduces maintenance needs and 

prevents ponding of water at the edge of the travel lane.

If longitudinal rumble strips are added along with the paved shoulder, they 

should contain sufficient gaps for cyclists to move from the shoulder to the travel 

lane. Additionally, there should be sufficient width for cyclists to ride between 

the edge of the rumble strip and the edge of the shoulder.

3.3 Identifying Funding Sources

Federal funds may be available for transportation safety projects. Many Federal 

funding sources are administered by the State transportation agency and 

possibly through Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Regional Planning 

Offices, with varying eligibility requirements and program goals. Potential 

funding sources are presented in Table 6. Federal funding assistance for eligible 
48 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

activities may include some 100 percent Federal-aid programs and programs 

requiring a non-Federal match. The Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) is a data-driven program. Projects funded through the HSIP have to show 

need based on data. State and local funding are usually available for specific 

safety projects, and the practitioner should contact the appropriate agencies in 

his or her State for availability and requirements.

Table 6. Potential Funding Sources

Source Purpose

Highway Safety 

Improvement 

Program (HSIP)

Projects that improve safety.

Transportation 

Alternatives (TA)

This replaces the Transportation Enhancement (TE) 

program. TA includes funding for bike and pedestrian 

facilities, safe routes to school, and recreational trails. 

Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality 

Improvement 

Program (CMAQ)

Transportation projects that contribute to congestion 

relief and air quality improvements.

National Highway 

System (NHS)

Roadways important to the Nation’s economy, 

defense, or mobility, to include the Interstate 

Highway System. 

Federal Lands 

Highway Program

Planning, research, engineering, and construction 

of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities 

within, adjacent to, or providing access to 

reservations and Federal public lands.

State and Community 

Traffic Safety Program 

(Section 402)

Reduce deaths and injuries on highways.

State Resources Every State has highway and transportation 

infrastructure funding.

3.4 Implementing Countermeasures

Implementing countermeasures is dependent on both the complexity and the 

available resources. Short-range improvements can often be implemented 

through maintenance activities, such as enhancing pavement markings or 

trimming vegetation at an intersection to enhance visibility of crossing traffic. 

Mid-range measures typically involve construction and can be built when 

funding becomes available. Construction projects can also be scheduled as 
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 49

long-range improvements and can be integrated into local, regional, and State 

transportation improvement programs and plans.

Decision makers will need justification to take action and allocate resources. 

Demonstrating the benefits of specific countermeasures will help create broad 

support and commitment to local initiatives. In fact, many improvements 

can address safety concerns facing both motorized and non-motorized 

transportation. For example, paved shoulders not only provide space for nonmotorized users outside of the designated vehicular travel lanes, but they also 

provide space for errant or disabled vehicles. To demonstrate the benefits to all 

road users, Maine DOT compiled 17 reasons to pave shoulders, four of which 

address non-motorized users’ safety:

1. Reduce passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists 

and pedestrians.

2. Make the crossing pedestrian more visible to motorists.

3. Provide space and safety for bicyclists to ride at their own pace.

4. Provide space between motor vehicles and pedestrians, increasing the 

pedestrians’ level of comfort.

Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 51

4: Follow-up and Evaluation

4.1 Tracking Countermeasures

Implemented strategies should be monitored and evaluated to determine 

levels of success. These help provide accountability and can be used to keep 

stakeholders informed and engaged. A variety of methods can be employed to 

evaluate progress within an HSIP. Tracking countermeasures can be accomplished 

through the development of a table or spreadsheet, detailing implementation 

information and status. Columns A-D of Table 7 provide examples of how 

installation information can be tracked.

Table 7. Example Table to Monitor Countermeasure Installation and Measure 

of Effectiveness Data.

A.

Strategy

B. 

Status

C. 

Agency

D. 

Comment

E. Effectiveness

PreInstallPost 

Install

West of the Main Street and Maple Street Intersection

Advanced 

warning 

signs

Installed 

8/15/11

County 

DOT

Town collected ped/bike 

volumes in “post” period which 

increased by 20% compared to 

“pre” period

1 crash 

in 3 yrs.

Intersection of Main Street and Birch Avenue

Advanced 

warning 

signs and 

marked 

crosswalks

Installed 

8/17/11

Town Town collected ped/bike 

volumes in “post” period which 

increased by 20% compared to 

“pre” period

1 crash 

in 3 yrs. 

30% 

using 

x-ing

50% 

using 

x-ing

Intersection of Main Street and Oak Terrace

Median 

island with 

refuge

Planned 

with 

repaving 

schedule 

(3/3/12)

Town Town collected ped/bike 

volumes in “post” period.

2 

crashes 

in 3 yrs. 

Intersection of Main Street and Chestnut Street

Advanced 

warning 

signs

Installed 

7/26/11

Town Town collected ped/bike 

volumes in “post” period which 

increased by 20% compared to 

“pre” period

1 crash 

in 3 yrs. 

East of the Main and Chestnut Intersection

Advanced 

warning 

signs

Installed 

8/10/11

County 

DOT

Town collected ped/bike 

volumes in “post” period which 

increased by 20% compared to 

“pre” period

1 crash 

in 3 yrs.
52 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

4.2 Evaluating Effectiveness

Evaluating the effectiveness of non-motorized countermeasures after installation 

can provide valuable insights and direction regarding improving safety for nonmotorized users in the future. The evaluation should focus on the quantifiable 

effects of the deployed countermeasures but could include qualitative feedback 

from safety stakeholders.

After countermeasures have been in place for at least one year, an interim 

evaluation can take place (see Table 7); however, at least three years of after 

data are required for a comprehensive evaluation of implemented strategies.

A before-and-after crash study can be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness 

of implemented strategies in improving safety when sufficient data are available. 

Details on creating a well-designed and executed before-and-after crash study 

can be found in A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors37 or in 

the Highway Safety Manual (HSM).38

In some cases, conducting a before-and-after study using crash data is not 

feasible due to the lack of non-motorized user crash data. When sufficient crash 

data are not available, other measures of effectiveness (MOEs) can be used to 

evaluate the safety performance of an implemented strategy. Some example 

MOEs include the following:

• Number of non-motorized users using a shoulder, path, sidewalk, or other 

linear facility or crossing.

• Percentage of non-motorized users travelling in the correct direction on the 

road (i.e., bicyclists and horse-and-buggies should travel with traffic and 

pedestrians against (or facing) traffic).

• Percentage of motor vehicles yielding at a non-motorized crossing.

• Motorized vehicle speed.

These MOEs are observed during a field study under similar periods and 

durations before and after implementation. As with crash-based evaluations 

of effectiveness, volume data for motorized and non-motorized users can help 

provide context on the results.

37 A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors. Federal Highway 

Administration, December 2010. Available: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/

resources/fhwasa10032/

38 Highway Safety Manual, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, 2010. Available: http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 53

5: Summary

Approximately 60 percent of all road miles in the U.S. are non-Interstate, rural 

roads owned and operated by local entities, such as towns, counties, and Tribal 

governments. In 2009, over 1,500 persons were killed in non-motorized crashes 

on rural roads in the U.S. Pedestrians and cyclists comprise the vast majority of 

these fatalities, and two-lane roads exhibit the greatest number of rural bicycle 

and pedestrian crashes while also having the highest crash frequency. Local 

practitioners who operate and maintain local rural roads should have a clear 

understanding of the needs of non-motorized users, as well as potential issues 

and countermeasures to mitigate them.

The challenge in addressing non-motorized safety in rural areas is that crashes 

involving non-motorized road users tend to be widely dispersed in time and 

location, defying a simple approach to reduce crash incidence. The significant 

number of lane-miles and the often dispersed nature of crashes may make it 

difficult to target specific locations for assessment and improvement. Yet, the 

potential for a severe crash involving non-motorized users may be high. Applying 

a systemic approach to addressing the safety of non-motorized users may be 

beneficial. Rather than concentrate on the locations of crashes, the focus of a 

systemic approach is to identify the common risk factors in crashes.

There may be opportunities to apply a systemic approach in conjunction with 

the State’s SHSP, which may include local and/or rural roads as an emphasis area 

for safety improvements. In particular, some of these areas may provide data or 

other programs to address non-motorized roadway user safety.

When seeking to address non-motorized safety within the local agency, the local 

practitioner may also look for opportunities to leverage non-motorized safety 

through other projects or may use data to identify non-motorized road user 

safety problems. Data that are readily available to many State and local agencies 

can facilitate the identification of the factors affecting non-motorized user safety. 

Detailed crash data provide the most substantive source of information to use 

in understanding the effects of roadway features and roadway user behaviors. 

Considering the relatively infrequent nature of rural non-motorized crashes, five 

years of crash data are recommended; however, practitioners should be aware 

of deficiencies in non-motorized user crash data. Other primary sources of data 

may include traffic data, speed data, local law enforcement records, emergency 

service data, hospital reports, and State and Federal databases. When historical 

data are insufficient to define issues, supplemental data should be obtained 
54 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

from other sources, such as data from stakeholders and observational data 

collected in the field.

Organizing and presenting data in a clear and concise manner aids in the process 

to define and understand factors affecting safety. Crash summary tables 

detailing severity, lighting, time of day, day of week, and month can be helpful in 

highlighting issues. Annotated maps can be created ranging from simple “push 

pin” maps that identify crash locations to more detailed maps illustrating crash 

characteristics and the roadway environment. Anecdotal information can also 

be shown on a map with a simple description of the observed concern written 

on the appropriate location of the map.

Once relevant data describing non-motorized safety have been assembled, 

the study area can be defined. The extent of the study area can be either a 

spot location, a corridor, or a network. A detailed assessment of the factors 

affecting non-motorized safety should be conducted. The assessment consists 

of two parts:

• An in-office analysis of data to determine issues.

• A field assessment to provide a more complete understanding of conditions 

and factors affecting non-motorized safety.

Crash data may not provide a comprehensive understanding of conditions and 

behaviors that affect non-motorized users; therefore, a field assessment should 

be conducted by local practitioners to collect additional information. The field 

assessment may be conducted at all or selected key locations to verify analysis 

findings and provide more detailed information regarding roadway conditions, 

transportation operations, and user behaviors that can help identify issues 

and select countermeasures. Various walkability and bikeability checklists that 

provide guidance for field observations of pedestrian and cyclist safety are 

available to practitioners, and some of these resources can be used as part of 

the RSA process. RSAs, which include a field review, are a valuable tool used to 

evaluate safety and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Once the issues are well understood, the issues should be prioritized and 

countermeasures identified. Safety issues associated with more frequent 

crashes and higher crash severity levels are higher priority than issues with less 

frequent and severe crashes. Countermeasures should address specific safety 

concerns identified through the data analysis and field reviews. The type and 

application of safety countermeasures will largely be based on the identification 

and analysis of non-motorized needs, behaviors, and conditions that affect 
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | 55

safety. Proposed countermeasures must be appropriate for the local land use 

and roadway conditions.

Non-motorized safety cannot be completely addressed through engineering 

countermeasures alone. Communication and coordination among the 4 E’s of 

safety with State and regional planning organizations are essential to ensuring 

that safety is comprehensively addressed. Representatives from each of the 4 

E’s may need to communicate regularly to ensure that countermeasures and 

strategies are coordinated to address the safety of all road users in rural areas. 

Implemented improvements should work collectively to address as many 

operational and safety concerns for both motorized and non-motorized users 

as possible. Detailed information on effective countermeasure selection may 

be acquired through partnerships with State and local agencies, including the 

State’s LTAP.

Funding for non-motorized safety programs is available from several local 

sources. Federal funding relies on a data-driven process that places emphasis 

on crash data. Local agencies can set their own priorities on spending using their 

own funds.

Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of countermeasures can help 

contribute to the success of a non-motorized safety program. Monitoring helps 

provide accountability and can be used to keep stakeholders informed and 

engaged. Evaluating the effectiveness of non-motorized countermeasures after 

installation can provide valuable direction. A before-and-after study comparing 

crashes before verses after implementation can be conducted to evaluate the 

effectiveness of measures implemented as part of a program. However, because 

crashes involving non-motorized users tend to be rare, conducting a before-andafter study using crash data may not be feasible. Other MOEs, such as vehicle 

speeds, may be used to evaluate the safety performance of an implemented 

strategy. Evaluations should include user volume data to verify the validity of 

results and confirm that improvements are attributable to safety measures.

Addressing the safety of non-motorized road users on local rural roads can be 

challenging. Employing a systemic approach that is supported by data and field 

reviews and considers the input of relevant stakeholders will better position 

agencies to address the safety needs of non-motorized users on rural roads. 

Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | A-1

Appendix A: Countermeasures

Tables 8, 9, and 10 present a toolbox of common 

engineering countermeasures that may be used 

to address non-motorized safety issues on 

rural roads. This list is not comprehensive; it is 

intended to provide general guidance on typical 

countermeasures. Each countermeasure in the 

tables includes the following information:

• Measure – A list of potential rural 

countermeasures that are applicable along 

the road, at crossings, or for traffic calming.

• Description – A brief description of 

the countermeasure.

• Application – Generally how or when to use 

the countermeasure. Includes when to use it 

on rural roads (RR) or rural villages (RV).

• Cost – The approximate cost of the countermeasure, with a range of low to 

high. Low-cost countermeasures are generally associated with items that do 

not involve construction, such as applying signing and pavement markings. 

Medium-cost countermeasures generally require some construction, while 

high-cost measures require extensive construction.

• Crash Modification Factor (CMF) – The measure of the effectiveness of a 

particular countermeasure, measured by the percentage of crashes it is 

expected to reduce. For example, shoulders provide space along the edge of 

the road for pedestrians, bicyclists, and horse-drawn vehicles. The CMF for 

shoulders is 0.63, meaning that crashes associated with the lack of shoulder 

space (e.g., walking, biking, or riding) alongside the road can be expected to 

decrease by 36 percent if shoulders are provided. Unless otherwise noted, 

CMFs can be found in the CMF clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.

org). However users should consult the original publication to determine 

applicability to their particular scenario.

• Illustration – A depiction or photograph of the countermeasure described.

Crash Modification 

Factors – A tool to aid 

in the countermeasure 

selection process is the 

CMF Clearinghouse. 

This online application 

is a database of 

CMFs and supporting 

documentation to 

help users identify 

the most appropriate 

countermeasures to 

address safety needs.

(http://www.

cmfclearinghouse.org/)
A-2 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 8. Roadway Measures

Measure Description 

Signage: Regulatory

Walk on Left Facing Traffic Signs1,6CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Signs directing pedestrians to walk on the left side of the roadway to face traffic (MUTCD R9-1). 

Bicycle Wrong Way and Ride with Traffic Signs1,6CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Signs informing cyclists that they are traveling the wrong way and directing cyclists to ride in the same direction as motorized vehicles (MUTCD R5-1b and R9-3cP). 
Table 8. Roadway Measures

Measure Description 

Signage: RegulatoryBicycles May Use Full Lane Signs1,6 Cost Low CMF** (UNK) Signs indicating that cyclists may occupy the travel lane (MUTCD R4-11). Signage: Warning

Vehicular and NonVehicular Warning Signs1, 6CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Signs warning motorists of unexpected entries into the roadway or to alert motor vehicles that they are sharing the roadway with bicycles, pedestrians, farm equipment, and horse-drawn vehicles (multiple signs; MUTCD Figures 2C-10 and 2C-11). A fluorescent yellow-green background color may be used for pedestrian and bicycle waning signs and accompanying plaques.
A-4 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 8. Roadway Measures

Measure Description 

Signage: WarningShare The Road Plaques1, 6 Cost Low CMF** (UNK) Signs warning motorists to share the roadway with slower forms of transportation, such as bicycles, pedestrians, or horse-drawn vehicles (MUTCD W16-1P). Pavement Markings

Shared Lane Markings6CostLowCMF**(UNK)

A pavement marking symbol (also known as a SLM or “Sharrow”) that warns motorists of the presence of cyclists and assists cyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side-by-side within the same traffic lane (Section 9C.07 of the MUTCD). 
Table 8. Roadway Measures

Measure Description 

Physical Environment

Paved Shoulders2, 4 – 8’CostHighCMF**0.297 (V) (P)

Dedicated space along the roadway that may accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, horse-drawn vehicles, and stopped motor vehicles in emergency, depending upon roadway characteristics, such as cross section, speed of vehicles in adjacent travel lane, and conflicts on shoulder. 

Separated ShouldersCostLow for restriping existing paved shoulder; high for constructing new paved shoulder CMF**0.297 (V) (P)

A paved shoulder that is separated by a pavement marking to create a buffer from the vehicle travel lanes. The buffer space may be marked with diagonal pavement markings and ranges from 1 to 4 feet wide. 
A-6 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 8. Roadway Measures

Measure Description 

Physical Environment

Bike Lanes3Cost*VariesCMF**0.658 (V) (B)

A lane in the roadway designated for bicycle use through the use of striping, signing, and pavement markings (MUTCD Chapter 9B and 9C).

Sidewalks and Walkways4CostMedium to HighCMF**0.11 – 0.357 (V) (P)

Pedestrian facilities that are separated from the roadway. Can be made of asphalt, concrete, or crushed stone. Sidewalks are usually paved and separated from the street by curbing. Pedestrian walkways may be separated from the roadway with a physical barrier or a landscaped strip.

Shared Use Paths4CostMedium to HighCMF**0.11 – 0.357 (V) (P)

A facility separated from motorized vehicular traffic by a landscaped space or barrier. Shared use paths may be used by cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other non-motorized users. Such facilities are often referred to as “trails.”5
Table 8. Roadway Measures

Measure Description 

Physical Environment

Roadway Illumination5 CostMediumCMF**0.27 – 0.89 (R)

Lighting directed to illuminate the roadway.

Roadway Surface Improvements CostMaintenance: lowPaving/ repaving: highCMF**Varies greatly based on conditions present

Roadway surface improvements include maintenance and paving activities to provide a smooth and slip-resistant traveling surface for pedestrians and cyclists.
A-8 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 8. Roadway Measures

Measure Description 

†Legend: (RR)=Rural Road, (RV) = Rural Village* Measures may vary greatly in cost. For example, some measures may be achieved through 

or it may require expansion of the roadway.

**CMF’s are based upon all crash types unless otherwise noted. Notations for other crash typ

(B)=bicycles, (P)= pedestrians, or location information (R)=rural. For those CMF’s that are unoted, CMFs can be found in the CMF clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org). publication to determine applicability to their particular scenario.

1. Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Wash2. ITE Committee 5A-5. (1998). Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, D.C.: In3. American Association of State Highway Safety Officials. (1999). Guide for the Development 

Association of State Highway Safety Officials.

4. Federal Highway Administration. (2008). Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Im

Countermeasures. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Federal Highway Administration: http:

5. Hall, J. W., Brogan, J. D., & Kondreddi, M. (2004). Pedestrian Safety on Rural Highways. FHW

Highway Administration.

6. Overuse of signs and pavement markings may reduce their effectiveness. These devices sh

greatest.

7. Gan, A., Shen, J., and Rodriguez, A., “Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Counte

District Safety Improvement Projects.” Florida Department of Transportation, (2005).

8. Rodegerdts, L. A., Nevers, B., and Robinson, B., “Signalized Intersections: Informational Gu9. Elvik, R. and Vaa, T., “Handbook of Road Safety Measures.” Oxford, United Kingdom, Elsevi
Table 9. Crossing Measures

Measure Description 

Signage: Regulatory

Traffic Signal Pedestrian and Bicycle Actuation Signs1CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Signs directing pedestrians and bicyclists to use push buttons at signalized intersections (MUTCD Figures 2B-26 and 9B-2).

Yield to/Stop for Pedestrians1,7CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Signs directing drivers to yield/stop at yield (stop) lines used in advance of a marked crosswalk (R1-5a, b, and c- MUTCD Figure 2B-2).
A-10 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 9. Crossing Measures

Measure Description 

Signage: Regulatory

In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs1,7CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Signage, also known as Pedestrian Knockdown Signs, that is placed in the roadway alerting roadway users of pedestrian crossings (MUTCD R1-6 or R1-6a). If struck by a vehicle, the signs are designed to bend over and bounce back. 

Side-of-Street Pedestrian Uncontrolled Crosswalk Signs7CostLowCMF**(UNK)

As an alternative to the in-street pedestrian knockdown sign, some agencies have developed a side-of-street sign. This sign is a modified version of the R1-6a for use on the side of the road and is not found in the MUTCD. Approval for experimentation would need to be obtained from FHWA. For more information on experimental devices, refer to Section 1A.10 of the 2009 edition of the MUTCD.
Table 9. Crossing Measures

Measure Description 

Signage: Warning

Vehicular and Non‐vehicular Warning Signs1, 7CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Signs warning drivers of unexpected entries into the roadway or to alert drivers that they are sharing the roadway with bicycles, pedestrians, farm equipment, and horse-drawn vehicles (MUTCD Figures 2C-10 and 2C-11). A fluorescent yellowgreen background color may be used for pedestrian and bicycle warning signs and accompanying plaques.

Playground, School Warning, and School Crossing Signs1, 7CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Signs that warn motorists of a playground; school property, buildings, or crossing guards; and/or a designated school zone (MUTCD W15-1 and Figure 7B-1). School crossing and advanced school crossing signs are similar to pedestrian crossing signs, only they warn motorists of a school crossing. 
A-12 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 9. Crossing Measures

Measure Description 

Signage: WarningSchool Bus Stop Warning Signs1, 7 Cost Low CMF** (UNK) Signs that are used in advance of bus stops (MUTCD S3-1). Pavement Markings

Crosswalks2, 5CostVariesLow markings only Moderate markings and simple ADA landings; High significant pedestrian safety features requiredCMF**0.4 – 0.752, 5 (V) (P) (R) 

Pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian or bicycle crossing. There are several types including: continental, zebra, and standard (MUTCD Section 3B.18).
Table 9. Crossing Measures

Measure Description 

Pavement Markings

XING Markings1, 5CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Pavement markings that provide emphasis to pedestrian and bicycle crossings (MUTCD Section 3B.20). 

Advance Yield/Stop Lines1,5CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Pavement markings used at crosswalks as a supplement to a Yield Here to/Stop for Pedestrians sign.

Physical EnvironmentMedian Crossing Islands3 Cost Medium CMF** 0.54 – 0.617 (V) (P) A raised island in the center of the roadway with a refuge area that is accessible for pedestrians of all abilities. Can also provide a refuge area for cyclists, especially at locations where a shared use path crosses a roadway. The island allows pedestrians and cyclists to cross one direction of traffic at a time. 
A-14 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 9. Crossing Measures

Measure Description 

Physical Environment

Staggered Median Islands4CostMediumCMF**0.54 – 0.617 (V) (P)

A raised island located in the center of the roadway where the crosswalk is offset through the median island. The pedestrian crossing on the island is fenced and directs pedestrians to face oncoming traffic while crossing the median.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons1,5CostHighCMF**0.309 (V) (P) – 0.7128

This device is one of the new FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures and is used to warn and control traffic at an unsignalized location to assist pedestrians in crossing a street or highway at a marked crosswalk (MUTCD Chapter 4F). The device consists of three signal sections, with a yellow signal head centered below two horizontally aligned red signal heads.
Table 9. Crossing Measures

Measure Description 

Physical Environment

Rectangular Rapid Flash LED Beacons4, 6CostMediumCMF**(UNK)

A beacon that provides a warning to motorists about the presence of a crosswalk. Beacon is yellow, rectangular, and has a rapid “wig-wag” flash similar to police lights. Beacon should operate only when a pedestrian is present; utilize either push button or passive detection.

In-roadway warning lights at crosswalk1CostMediumCMF**(UNK)

Amber flashing lights embedded in the pavement on both sides of a crosswalk and oriented to face oncoming traffic, these serve as a warning for motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. The amber LED lights flash in unison and are visible during the daylight, as well as at night. 
A-16 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 9. Crossing Measures

Measure Description 

†Legend: (RR)=Rural Road, (RV) = Rural Village* Measures may vary greatly in cost. For example, some measures may be achieved through redist

may require expansion of the roadway.

**CMF’s are based upon all crash types unless otherwise noted. Notations for other crash types ma

(P)= pedestrians, or location information (R)=rural. For those CMF’s that are unknown, (UNK) = Ube found in the CMF clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org). However users should capplicability to their particular scenario.

1. Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Washington2. ITE Committee 5A-5. (1998). Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, D.C.: Institut3. American Association of State Highway Safety Officials. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bic

Association of State Highway Safety Officials.

4. Federal Highway Administration. (2008). Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Impleme

Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Federal Highway Administration: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/po

5. Hall, J. W., Brogan, J. D., & Kondreddi, M. (2004). Pedestrian Safety on Rural Highways. FHWA-SA-

Administration.

6. Overuse of signs and pavement markings may reduce their effectiveness. These devices should b

greatest.

7. Zegeer, C. V., Stewart, R., Huang, H., and Lagerwey, P., “Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarke

Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines.” FHWA-RD-01-075, McLean, Va., Federal Hig

8. Fitzpatrick, K. and Park, E.S. Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment, FH

Administration, Washington, DC. (2010). Also published in: Fitzpatrick, K., E.S.Park, and S. TurneCrossing Treatment”. ITE Journal, Vol. 82, No. 4, Washington, D.C., (2012).
Table 10. Speed Reduction Measures

Measure Description 

Signage

Speed Feedback Signs1, 7CostLowCMF**0.548

A changeable message sign that displays the speed of approaching vehicles.

Pavement Markings

Speed Reduction Markings1, 7CostLowCMF**(UNK)

Pavement markings that are located on either side of the travel lane and are perpendicular to the centerline and edgelines. They are progressively spaced at shorter distances to give motorists the illusion of traveling at a faster speed (MUTCD Figure 3B-28).
A-18 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 10. Speed Reduction Measures

Measure Description 

Pavement Markings

Roadway (or Transverse) Rumble StripsCostLowCMF**0.769 (R) 

Raised bars or grooves placed across the travel lane that can be either black or white.

Lane NarrowingCostLowCMF**Varies10

The narrowing of travel lanes—either visually (by using pavement markings) or physically narrowing (with measures such as curb extensions). One example of visually narrowing lanes is a painted island that is an island defined by pavement markings and created with the function of reducing lane widths for traffic calming purposes.3
Table 10. Speed Reduction Measures

Measure Description 

Pavement Markings Regulatory Pavement Markings3 Cost Low CMF** (UNK) Pavement markings, such as “25 MPH”, that emphasize regulatory signage (MUTCD Section 3B.20). Physical Environment

Gateways1CostLow – HighCMF**(UNK)

Visual or physical markers to serve as an indicator to motorists that they are entering an urbanized area and to slow down.

Curb Extensions1CostMediumCMF**0.6311

Also known as bulb-outs or neckdowns, curb extensions are portions of the roadway where the curb extends out into the parking lane. This both visually and physically narrows the roadway to reduce vehicle speeds, it allows pedestrians and motorists to better see each other, and it provides a shorter distance for pedestrian crossings. 
A-20 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 10. Speed Reduction Measures

Measure Description 

Physical Environment

Lane Narrowing4CostMedium – HighCMF**Varies by width 

The physical narrowing of lane widths. Can also be achieved through pavement markings (see above).

Road Diets5CostLow – MediumCMF**0.4712 – 0.7113 (S) (U)

A redistribution of space in the roadway leading to a reduction in the number of travel lanes for motor vehicles on a roadway. The road diet is one of FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures and may provide space for bike lanes, sidewalk, or medians, and can help to reduce motor vehicle speed.

Roundabouts6CostLow – HighCMF**0.2914 – 0.4215

A type of intersection form that is characterized by a generally circular shape, yield control on entry, and raised geometric features, including splitter islands and a center island, that together create a low-speed, efficient environment. Roundabouts are included in the FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures.
Table 10. Speed Reduction Measures

Measure Description 

†Legend: (RR)=Rural Road, (RV) = Rural Village, * Measures may vary greatly in cost. For example, some measures may be achieved through redist

may require expansion of the roadway.

**CMF’s are based upon all crash types unless otherwise noted. Notations for other crash types ma

(P)=pedestrians, or location information (R)=rural, (S)=suburban, (U)=urban. For those CMF’s thaotherwise noted, CMFs can be found in the CMF clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.opublication to determine applicability to their particular scenario.

1. Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Engineering Countermeasures for Reducing Speeds: A D

Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.

2. Federal Highway Administration. (2008). Traffic Calming on Main Roads Through Rural Communiti3. Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Washington4. Federal Highway Administration. PedSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selectio

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center: http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/index.cfm

5. National Center for Safe Routes to School. Safe Routes to School Guide. Retrieved August 29, 201

School: http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/index.cfm

6. Federal Highway Administration. Roundabouts Technical Summary. FHWA-SA-10-006. 7. Overuse of signs and pavement markings may reduce their effectiveness. These devices should b

greatest.

8. Elvik, R. and Vaa, T., “Handbook of Road Safety Measures.” Oxford, United Kingdom, Elsevier, (209. Liu, P., Huang, J., Wang, W., Xu, C., “Effects of Transverse Rumble Strips on Safety of Pedestrian C

Presented at the 90th Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., (2011).

10. Hauer, E., “Lane Width and Safety.” (2000).11. Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effective

Sheet 8, ITE, FHWA, (2004).

12. Persaud, B., Lana, B., Lyon, C., and Bhim, R. “Comparison of empirical Bayes and full Bayes appro

Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 42, Issue 1, pp. 38-43 (2010).
A-22 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Table 10. Speed Reduction Measures

Measure Description 

13. Harkey, D.L., R. Srinivasan, J. Baek, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, F.M. Council, K. Eccles, N. Lefler, F. Gross, 

for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements”, NCHRP Project 17-25 Final Report, Washington, DProgram, Transportation Research Board, (2008).

14. Rodegerdts, L. A., Blogg, M., Wemple, E., Myers, E., Kyte, M., Dixon, M., List, G., Flannery, A., Tro

Lyon, C., Harkey, D., and Carter, D., “NCHRP Report 572: Applying Roundabouts in the United StaBoard, National Research Council, (2007).

15. Persaud, B. N., Retting, R. A., Garder, P. E., and Lord, D., “Observational Before-After Study of the 

Using the Empirical Bayes Method.” Transportation Research Record, No. 1751, Washington, D.CResearch Council, (2001).
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | B-1

Appendix B: Tools & Resources

Standards/Guidelines to Address Safety on Local Roads

1. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book), 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=110

2. ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), United States Access Board

http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm

3. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway 

Administration

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-pubs.htm

Resources to Address Safety on Rural Roads

4. Local Rural Road Owner’s Manual, Federal Highway Administration

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/

5. Peer-to-Peer Program

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/p2p/

6. Safety Resource CD

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/resourcecd/

7. Federal Highway Administration, Road Safety Audits Guidelines(FHWASA-06-06)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/documents/FHWA_SA_06_06.

pdf

8. RSA Toolkit DVD

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/resources/toolkitcd/

9. CMF Clearinghouse, Federal Highway Administration

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org

10. Roadway Safety Tools for Local Agencies, A Synthesis of Highway Practice 

(NCHRP Synthesis 321), National Cooperative Highway Research Program

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_321.pdf

11. Rural Highway Safety Clearinghouse, University of Minnesota

http://www.ruralsafety.umn.edu/clearinghouse/topics/planning/

12. Rural Areas and Small Towns, National Complete Streets Coalition

http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/

factsheets/rural-areas-and-small-towns/
B-2 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Resources to Address Safety of Pedestrians and Bicyclists on Rural Roads

13. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

Pedestrian and Bicyclists Crash Analysis Tool

http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/pbcat/index.cfm

14. Bicyclinginfo.org

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/index.cfm

15. Bikeability Checklist

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=3

16. BIKESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/

17. Walkinginfo.org

http://www.walkinginfo.org/index.cfm

18. Walkability Checklist

http://www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=12

19. PEDSAFE Pedestrian Countermeasure Selection System

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

FHWA

20. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/

21. A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safe and Walkable Communities (FHWASA-07-016), Federal Highway Administration

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/ped/ped_walkguide/

22. How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (FHWA-SA-05-12), Federal 

Highway Administration

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/docs/fhwasa0512.pdf

23. Pedestrian and Bicycle Program, Federal Highway Administration

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/

24. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I, A Review of Existing 

Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalks/

25. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part II, Best Practices Guide, 

Federal Highway Administration

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/

26. Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists (FHWASA-07-007), Federal Highway Administration

http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.pdf

27. Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings – An Informational Guide 

(FHWA-SA-03-019), Federal Highway Administration

http://www.bikewalk.org/pdfs/sopada_fhwa.pdf
Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook | B-3

28. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled 

Locations (FHWA-HRT-04-100), Federal Highway Administration

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/

29. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intersection Safety Indices (FHWA-HRT-06-125), 

Federal Highway Administration

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/

pedbike/06125/06125.pdf

AASHTO

30. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials

https://bookstore.transportation.org/Item_details.aspx?id=104

31. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?id=119

NCHRP

32. A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Bicycles (NCHRP Report 500), 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v18.pdf

33. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (NCHRP Report 

562), National Cooperative Highway Research Program

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf

Other Sources

34. Bicycle Level of Service/Bicycle Compatibility Index Online Calculator, 

League of Illinois Bicyclists

http://www.bikelib.org/roads/blos/blosform.htm

35. Smart Cycling

Traffic Skills 101, League of American Bicyclists

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php#101

36. Worksite walkability audit tool. Centers for Disease Control.

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/walkability/audit_tool.htm

37. Vermont Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Planning and Design Manual, 

Vermont Agency of Transportation

http://www.aot.state.vt.us/progdev/Documents/LTF/

FinalPedestrianAndBicycleFacility/PedBikeTOC.html
B-4 | Non-Motorized User Safety Guidebook 

Resources to Address Speed on Rural Roads

38. The Massachusetts DOT’s Project Development and Design Guide

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/

designguide&sid=about

39. When Main Street is a State Highway, Maryland State Highway 

Administration

http://www.sha.maryland.gov/ohd/MainStreet.pdf

40. Pennsylvania’s Traffic Calming Handbook

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/pdHwyIntHS.nsf/HomePageTrafficCal

ming?OpenForm&BaseTarget=main

41. Evaluation of Gateway and Low-Cost Traffic-Calming Treatments for Major 

Routes in Small, Rural Communities

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/reports/traffic-calming-rural.pdf

42. Gorrill, Darlene. Traffic Calming for High-Speed Rural Roadways. 

Minnesota Department of Transportation, June 2008.

http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/TRS0801.pdf

43. Tech Brief Traffic Calming on Main Roads Through Rural Communities 

(FHWA-HRT-08-067), Federal Highway Administration

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/08067/08067.pdf

Resources to Address Road User Behaviors on Rural Roads

44. Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures (NCHRP 

Report 622), National Cooperative Highway Research Program

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_622.pdf

Resources to Address the Safety of Horse-drawn Vehicles

45. Horse and Buggy Driver’s Manual, Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20632.pdf

46. Amish Buggy Safety Program, Ohio Department of Transportation

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/ProgramMgt/

CapitalPrograms/Pages/AmishBuggy.aspx
For More Information

Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590-9898

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA-SA-12-026