BICYCLE ROAD SAFETY 

AUDIT GUIDELINES AND 

PROMPT LISTS

MAY 2012

FHWA-SA-12-018
i

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use 

of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of this document.
ii

1. Report No.

FHWA‐SA‐12‐018

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

5. Report Date

May 2012

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Dan Nabors, Elissa Goughnour, Libby Thomas, William DeSantis, Michael 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  

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration  

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, DC 20590‐9898

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

July 2010 – May 2012 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

The Task Manager for this report was Richard Schaffer (FHWA Office of Safety).  The University of North Carolina Highway

Safety Research Center was a subcontractor for this report.  The project team gratefully acknowledges the input provided by

the technical working group over the course of this project.  These individuals include:  Craig Allred, Rebecca Crowe, Yon

Lambert, Lauren Marchetti, Richard Moeur, Gabe Rousseau, Michael Sanders, Cara Seiderman, Tom Trowbridge, and Mighk

Wilson.  Contributions were also made by the following:  Daniel Lovas, Kevin Moriarty, Jakob Helmboldt, Billy Hattaway,

Matthew Carmody, Janet Jenkins, and Noah Bernstein.  Images were provided by Dan Nabors, William DeSantis, Libby

Thomas, Michael Sawyer, Matthew Carmody, and Jonathan Maus.  Graphic design was provided by Jorge Quinones.

16. Abstract

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are a formal safety examination of an existing or future roadway or off‐road facility and are

conducted by an independent, experienced, multidisciplinary team.  The purpose of the Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines

and Prompt Lists is to provide transportation agencies and RSA teams with a better understanding of the safety of cyclists in

the transportation system when conducting an RSA.  These Guidelines present the RSA team with an overview of basic

principles of the safety of cyclists and potential issues affecting cyclists.   They also provide information on how to conduct an

RSA and effectively assess the safety of cyclists.  Prompt lists describe safety considerations when conducting a cyclist‐specific

RSA.  These Guidelines will help RSA teams evaluate and suggest a multimodal approach to safety by improving the safety of

cyclists and all roadway users.

17. Key Words

Cyclist safety, bicycle safety, multimodal, road safety audit,

prompt lists

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 87

22. Price

  

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8‐72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized
iii
Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

Table of Contents

iv

Chapter 1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1

1.1 Cycling in the United States .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Purpose of These Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Scope of These Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Organization of These Guidelines........................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Knowledge Base for Conducting RSAs................................................................................................................ 4

1.6 Glossary of Terms .............................................................................................................................. 6

Chapter 2 Basic Principles of Bicycle Safety���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11

2.1 Cycling as a Mode of Travel ......................................................................................................................................11

2.2 Characteristics of Cyclists .............................................................................................................................. 12

2.3 The Cycling Network............................................................................................................................... 14

2.4 Crash Data Analysis Considerations ....................................................................................................................15

2.5 Factors That Contribute to Bicycle Crashes ....................................................................................................16

2.5.1 Location Factors........................................................................................................................................ 16

2.5.2 Speed Factors........................................................................................................................................ 17

2.5.3 Seasonal Factors, Weather, and Surface Conditions .........................................................................18

2.5.4 Behavioral Factors....................................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 3 Cyclists in the Road Safety Audit Process������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 23

3.1 What is an RSA? .............................................................................................................................. 23

3.2 What Should be Considered for an RSA? .........................................................................................................24

3.3 Who Should Conduct RSAs? ....................................................................................................................................24

3.4 When Should RSAs be Conducted? ....................................................................................................................24

3.5 How is an RSA Conducted? ......................................................................................................................................25

3.6 Anticipated Challenges in Conducting Bicycle-Oriented RSAs .........................................................33

Chapter 4 Using the Bicycle RSA Prompt Lists����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35

4.1 Purpose of the Prompt Lists .............................................................................................................................. 35

4.2 Organization of the Prompt Lists ..........................................................................................................................35

4.3 When to Use the Prompt Lists ................................................................................................................................37

4.4 How to Use the Prompt Lists ...................................................................................................................................37

4.4.1 Presence and Availability...............................................................................................................................38

4.4.2 Human Factors and Behavior .....................................................................................................................39

Master Prompt List.............................................................................................................................................. 43

Prompt List............................................................................................................................................................ 47

References.............................................................................................................................................................. 79
v
Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

1

1

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Cycling in the United States

Cycling has long been an effective method for travel and the primary means of transportation 

for many. Over the past several decades, the U.S. has experienced somewhat of a renaissance 

in cycling for recreation, health, and transportation. Adults as well as children are reconnecting 

with the enjoyment and mobility offered through cycling. Cycling provides an opportunity for 

regular aerobic exercise, which public health officials stress is necessary for good health. Many 

commuters have also found cycling to be a permanent and economical option to avoid traffic 

congestion and parking difficulties. 

Cycling has been an integral part of transportation plans since the passage of the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. In that same year, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) adopted a new national policy that, for the first time, sought to 

“increase use of bicycling, and encourage planners and engineers to accommodate bicycle and 

pedestrian needs in designing transportation facilities for urban and suburban areas.” In 1991, 

Congress also commissioned the National Bicycling and Walking Study, which was published by 

the USDOT in 1994. The study provided key information to understand cycling and walking in 

the U.S. and to translate ISTEA into action by creating two specific goals:

■ Double the percentage of trips made by foot and bicycle.

■ Simultaneously reduce the number of traffic crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians 

by 10 percent.1

Subsequent legislation has supported cycling and the need to accommodate cyclists. The 

National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15–Year Status Report released in May 2010, provided an 

update of the status of biking and walking in the U.S.1 The report showed the percentage of 

bicycle trips to increase from 0.7 percent to one percent, whereas the percentage of walking 

trips increased from 7.2 percent to 10.9 percent. Collectively, cycling and walking accounted 

for 11.9 percent of all reported trips, falling short of the doubling goal (i.e., 7.9 percent to 15.8 

percent). However, between 1990 and 2009, the number of reported bicycle trips more than 

Cycling is a popular mode 

of transportation that serves 

many needs —from commuting to recreation.
2

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

doubled from 1.7 billion to 4 billion. This increase shows that, despite the slower than desired 

nationwide growth in the proportion of bicycle trips, some areas around the country have 

experienced a much larger increase in the percentage of people walking and bicycling. For 

example, between 2001 and 2007, Marin County, California experienced an average 66 percent 

increase in the weekday bicycling rate, a 33 percent increase on weekend days, and an average 

8 percent increase in the weekday walking rate.2 During this period Marin County implemented 

the Safe Routes to School Program and also participated in the Federal Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program. Other areas, such as Washington, D.C. (referred to subsequently as 

the District), have also seen a large increase in the number of people bicycling. In 2010, 2.2 

percent of people biked to work, a rate that had almost doubled over the previous 10 years,3

and from 2008 to 2011 the number of cyclists in the District increased by over two-thirds.4 This 

increase can be attributed in part to an expansion of the facilities available to bicyclists, as well 

as greater access to bicycles. The District has installed bicycle lanes and bicycle storage facilities 

and in 2008 initiated the Capital Bikeshare Program, providing public access to rental bicycles 

throughout the city.

In New York City, commuter cycling doubled between 2007 and 2011.5 During this period, the 

New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) launched numerous programs and 

initiatives to make cycling and walking safer, such as implementing 90 miles of new bicycle 

lanes in 2008 that contributed to a record 35 percent single-year increase in commuter cycling. 

In 2012, the city’s first bike share program will begin implementing a plan to build 600 stations 

housing 10,000 bikes. This program should increase commuter cycling even further and 

increase utilization of the city’s nearly 400 bike-lane miles. 

The addition of bicycle lanes, bike boxes, and other facilities in New York City has lead to a dramatic increase in cycling (Photographs from NYCDOT).

Overall, the areas with the greatest increases in bicycle trips have been those making a 

concerted effort to improve infrastructure conditions that are conducive to making cycling 

a viable and appealing transportation option. This includes not only making improvements 

in infrastructure, but also better combining land use and transportation initiatives allowing 

residents to live closer to a variety of destinations, making cycling an effective choice for 

commuting, recreational, and personal trips. Data from the Nationwide Personal Transportation 

Survey indicates that almost one-half of all trips are 3 miles or less, which is considered to be 

within cycling range for most adults in this country.6
3

Introduction

In terms of safety, the National Bicycling and Walking Study report indicated that the original 

goal of reducing the number of crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians by 10 percent has 

been surpassed.1 Since 1995, the number of cyclist and pedestrian fatalities has decreased by 

more than 20 percent (from 6,452 to 5,094 fatalities), while the number of cyclist and pedestrian 

injuries has decreased by over by 16 percent (from 145,000 to 121,000 injuries). Overall, injury 

trends from national estimates demonstrate a generally more consistent downward trend since 

1995, although 2008 appears to be a significant exception, with an increase of more than 20 

percent in injury crashes from the previous year. 

The increase in bicycle injuries in 2008 demonstrates the uncertainty and variability of these 

data, which is underscored by the fact that little is known about bicycle volumes and potential 

crash exposure. Typically, severe crashes causing a fatality are reported; however, less serious 

cyclist crashes are more frequent and underreported. Adding to the complexity, there are 

neither consistent roadway inventory nor inventory for off-road areas (e.g. sidewalks, parking 

lots, paths, parks, and playgrounds), where approximately one-third of bicycle injuries may 

occur.7 Nearly three-fourths of the cyclists treated and released by hospital emergency departments were injured in non-roadway or non-motor vehicle incidents and were unlikely to be 

reported in State traffic records.8 It is evident that trends—and the current safety status of 

cyclists—are largely unknown.

What is known is that, over the past decade, between 629 and 786 cyclists were killed annually 

and an estimated 52,000 have been reported injured annually in the U.S..9 Bicycle trips are more 

likely to result in a fatality or injury than motor vehicle trips. The estimated one percent of trips 

by bicycle accounted for two percent of all fatalities and injuries in 2009. Based on these data, 

expanded review of safety issues and implementation of countermeasures are necessary to 

effectively address the safety of cyclists.

Increases in bicycle accommodations by State and local transportation agencies are certainly 

helping to address safety concerns and reduce cyclists’ risks. However, even these agencies are 

experiencing new and unique challenges never faced before. Road safety audits (RSAs) can be 

used to help address the safety of cyclists by improving the understanding of both the characteristics of cyclists and the factors that affect cyclist safety. An RSA is a formal safety examination 

of an existing facility or future roadway plan or project, that is conducted by an independent, 

experienced, multidisciplinary team. RSAs are a cost-effective method to proactively identify 

factors affecting safety and make suggestions on strategies and facilities to improve cyclist 

safety and support a truly multimodal street network for all types of facilities. 

1.2 Purpose of These Guidelines

The purpose of the Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists is to provide transportation agencies and RSA teams with a better understanding of the safety of cyclists in the 

transportation system when conducting an RSA. These Guidelines emphasize considering the 

context of the cycling environment from a “behind the handlebars” perspective. This document 

is an expansion of the cyclist-related material in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines10 previously published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 
4

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

1.3 Scope of These Guidelines

The Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists, a cyclist-specific RSA guide, presents 

RSA team members with safety elements they should consider when conducting a cyclistspecific RSA. While the authors have made every attempt to be as thorough as possible, persons 

performing RSAs are reminded that conditions vary from site to site and additional concerns 

not documented herein may arise. That said, agencies should tailor prompt lists to their individual needs. Not all prompts included in these Guidelines will be applicable for all areas. 

RSA team members with an understanding of the RSA principles and process can use this publication to conduct an effective cyclist-oriented review of a facility or help ensure that the cycling 

component of the RSA is adequately considered. It is important to note, however, that an RSA 

involves a review of all modal behaviors, needs, and facilities. Other RSA resources, such as the 

FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines10 and the FHWA Pedestrian Road Safety Audits Guidelines and 

Prompt Lists11, may be helpful in conducting a thorough RSA.

All elements of the roadway and pathway network where cyclists are permitted are covered in 

these Guidelines. This includes on-road accommodations (e.g., shared roadways and roads with 

designated bicycle facilities, like marked bicycle lanes) and off-road cycling facilities (e.g., shared 

used paths and separated bike facilities).

1.4 Organization of These Guidelines

The Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists is organized into the following chapters:

■ Chapter 2: Basic Principles of Bicycle Safety—provides an overview of the basic principles of 

cyclist safety considerations and where potential cycling issues are likely to occur.

■ Chapter 3: Cyclists in the Road Safety Audit Process—answers basic questions about 

conducting RSAs and how that process is applied to effectively assess and enhance 

cyclist safety.

■ Chapter 4: Using the Bicycle RSA Prompt Lists—explains the structure of the prompt lists 

and describes how to effectively use them when conducting a cyclist-specific safety audit. 

Also presents the prompt lists and descriptions of the prompts, including examples of safety 

concerns that may be encountered.

■ Prompt Lists—identifies potential safety issues affecting cyclists and the conditions 

contributing to those issues. 

1.5 Knowledge Base for Conducting RSAs

Before conducting an RSA, it is critical that some RSA team members have an understanding of 

the design requirements for a cycling facility as well as the relative safety provided by various 

design features. Some RSA team members should also have an understanding of the necessary 

skills to bike, particularly in traffic. The following are resources that are important for the RSA 

team to understand. This list is not comprehensive, but having an understanding of these will 

help the RSA team members check for conditions that may create safety issues for cyclists. 

All elements of the roadway 

and pathway network where 

cyclists are permitted are 

covered in these Guidelines. 
5

Introduction

Standards/Guidelines

■ AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets “Green Book”

https://bookstore.transportation.org/Item_details.aspx?id=110

■ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009.htm

Successful Practices/Guides

■ AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/b_aashtobik.pdf

■ AASHTO Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design

https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=103

■ NACTO Urban Bikeways Design Guide

http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/

■ Complete Streets: Best Policy and Implementation Practices

http://www.planning.org/apastore/search/Default.aspx?p=4060

■ ITE Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable 

Communities

http://www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf

■ Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets

http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/Orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=LP-670

Safety Resources

■ BIKESAFE: Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/

■ Commuter Bicyclist Behavior and Facility Disruption. Final Report (2007)

http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200715.pdf

■ NCHRP Report 500 Volume 18: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Bicycles

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v18.pdf

■ Orlando Area Bicyclist Crash Study: A Role-Based Approach to Crash Countermeasures (2004)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3785626/Orlando-Area-Bicyclist-Crash-Study-A-Role-BasedApproach-to

■ Smart Cycling: Traffic Skills 101 (League of American Bicyclists)

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php#101

■ The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning (Bicycle Driving)

http://bicycledriving.org/about/the-dilemmas-of-bicycle-planning

■ Street Smarts (John Allen)

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

State Resources

■ Arizona Department of Transportation State Highway Bicycle Safety Action Plan

http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/bicycle_safety_study.asp

■ Massachusetts Highway Department Project Development and Design Guide

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/designGuide&sid=about

■ North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guidelines (manual and video)

http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/projectdevelopment/design_guidelines/default.html
6

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

■ Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml

■ Virginia Bicycle Facility Resource Guide

http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/resources/bk-facresguide.pdf

RSA Guidance

■ FHWA Road Safety Audit Web Site

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/

■ FHWA Road Safety Audit Video

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/video2009/

■ FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines (Publication FHWA-SA-06-06)

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

■ FHWA Pedestrian RSA Guidelines and Prompt Lists (Publication FHWA-SA-07-007)

http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.pdf

Level of Service (LOS) Tools and Quantitative Assessments

■ Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) tool and guidelines

http://www.bikelib.org/roads/blos/blosform.htm

■ Pedestrian and Bicycle Intersection Safety Indices (Ped and Bike ISI)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/06130/06130.pdf

■ Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT)

http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/pbcat/index.cfm?/pc/pbcat.htm

■ NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (2008)

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf

1.6 Glossary of Terms

The glossary is intended to identify terms used in these Guidelines referring to bicycle facility 

planning, design, and engineering. This glossary will help to establish the appropriate and 

consistent terminology for everyone involved in the RSA process. 

■ Bicycle (Bike)—A pedal-propelled device that is solely human powered and has two or more 

wheels, including children’s bicycles, except a toy vehicle intended for use by young children 

such as a tricycle.12

■ Bicycle Boulevard—A street segment (or series of contiguous street segments) that has been 

modified to accommodate through bicycle traffic but discourage through motor traffic.

■ Bicycle (Bike) Box—A defined and/or colored area at a signalized intersection provided for 

bicyclists to pull in front of waiting traffic. The box is intended to reduce car-bike conflicts, 

particularly involving right-turning movements across the path of a bicyclist, and to increase 

bicyclist visibility. 

■ Bicycle Facility—A general term denoting infrastructure and provisions to accommodate 

or encourage bicycling, including parking and storage facilities, and shared roadways not 

specifically designated for bicycle use.12

■ Bicycle (Bike) Lane—A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, pavement 

markings, and signs for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists (see Figure 1).12
7

Introduction

Figure 1. A Depiction of Key Terms Used to Describe Roadway Elements that Relate to Cyclists.

■ Bicycle (Bike) Path—A pathway that is intended for the exclusive use by bicyclists, where a 

separate, parallel path is provided for pedestrians and other wheeled users. Most pathways are 

shared between bicyclists and other uses (See Shared Use Path).12

■ Bikeway—A generic term for any road, street, path, or traveled way that is in some 

manner specifically or legally designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such 

facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other 

transportation modes.12

■ Bus/Bikeway—A marked lane for exclusive use by buses and cyclists. May also be referred to 

as a bus/bicycle lane. 

■ Complete Streets—Roadways that are designed with the safety of all users in mind, including 

but not limited to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. 

■ Contraflow Bicycle Lane—A bicycle lane that allows bicyclists to travel the opposite direction 

of motor vehicle traffic on a one-way street.

■ Cycle Track—A bicycle facility, typically unidirectional, that is separated from motor vehicle 

travel lanes, as well as sidewalks and pedestrians, by a physical barrier such as on-street 

parking or a curb, or is grade-separated (see Figure 2). 

Figure 2. An Example of a Cycle Track on a City Street.

Cycle Track
8

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

■ Cyclist (Bicyclist, Rider or Bike Rider)—A person who is riding a bicycle as defined above.

■ Highway—The entire width between the right-of-way open to the use of the public for 

purposes of vehicular travel, including paved shoulders.12

■ Loop Detector—An inductive (wire) loop embedded in the pavement that detects the 

presence of a vehicle at a signalized intersection to activate a signal change. Diagonal 

quadruple loops typically provide the best bicycle detection. 

■ Multi Use Path—See Shared Use Path.

■ National Bike Routes—A national network of bike routes that may span multiple States or 

have national or regional significance. 

■ On-road Accommodation—A facility that is part of the roadway or traveled way that is 

typically used by bicyclists and/or motor vehicles such as a shared lane, wide curb lane, 

bicycle lane, or bikeable shoulder. 

■ Off-road Accommodation—A path that is separate from the roadway used by motor 

vehicles. This may parallel a roadway or may be separate from a road, as it may pass through 

parks within the public right-of-way or on private right-of-way. This can be separated from 

pedestrian traffic (bicycle path) or shared with pedestrian traffic (shared use path).

■ Path—See Shared Use Path. Non-descriptive, general term.

■ Paved Shoulder—The portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for 

accommodation of stopped vehicles, for emergency use, and for lateral support of sub-base, 

base, and surface courses (see Figure 1).12 Use by cyclists may be allowed or prohibited based 

upon specific State laws. 

■ Roadway—The portion of a highway, including the shoulder, that is improved, designed, or 

ordinarily used for vehicular travel (see Figure 1).12

■ Separated Bicycle Facility—A bikeway within or adjacent to the roadway and separated from 

moving traffic by barriers or curbs, parking lanes, striped buffers, and other means.13 Separated 

bicycle facilities may be unidirectional or bidirectional.

■ Shared Lane—A lane of a traveled way that is open to bicycle travel and motor vehicle use.

● Narrow Lane—A travel lane less than 14 feet in width, which therefore does not allow 

bicyclists and motorists to travel side-by-side within the same traffic lane and maintain a 

safe separation distance.

● Wide Curb Lane—A travel lane at least 14 feet wide, adjacent to a curb, which allows 

bicyclists and motorists to travel side-by-side within the same traffic lane.

■ Shared Lane Marking (SLM or “Sharrow”)—A pavement marking symbol that assists 

bicyclists 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.14

■ Shared Roadway—A roadway that is open to and legally permits both bicycle and motor 

vehicle travel12; any existing street where bicycles are not prohibited. 

■ Shared Use Path—A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an 

open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent 

right-of-way (see Figure 1). Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, 

wheelchair users, joggers, and other non-motorized users.12 Such facilities are often referred 

to as “trails.”
9

Introduction

■ Sidewalk—The portion of a street or highway right-of-way designed for preferential or 

exclusive use by pedestrians (see Figure 1).12

■ Signed Shared Roadway (Signed Bike Route)—A shared roadway that has been designated 

by signing as a preferred route for bicycle use.12

■ Traffic Calming—A way to design or retrofit streets to encourage slower and more uniform 

vehicle speeds.

■ Trail—Non-descriptive general term typically referring to off-roadway facilities but with no 

standardized definition. Use should generally be avoided as it may refer to a range of facilities, 

including a coarse, unpaved hiking/biking route or a paved urbanized facility.

■ Traveled Way—The portion of the roadway, excluding shoulders, to be used for the 

movement of vehicles (see Figure 1).12

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

11

2

Chapter 2. Basic Principles of Bicycle Safety

This chapter provides a brief overview of elements that affect cyclists’ safety. RSA teams should 

have an understanding of these elements to better evaluate the cycling environment and 

improve the quality and safety of facilities that support cycling as a mode of travel.

2.1 Cycling as a Mode of Travel

Cyclists are legitimate users of the roadway and an integral part of our transportation system. 

The USDOT statement on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation regulations and recommendations released in March 2010 articulates this policy foundation.15 The policy recommends that 

well-connected bicycle networks should be planned, funded, and implemented, particularly 

connecting to transit services. The policy encourages “transportation agencies to go beyond 

the minimum requirements, and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context-sensitive 

facilities.” In conclusion, the policy states that the “USDOT recognizes that safe and convenient 

walking and bicycling facilities may be different depending on the context—appropriate facilities in a rural community may be different from a dense, urban area. However, regardless of 

regional, climate, and population density differences, it is important that pedestrian and bicycle 

facilities be integrated into transportation systems.”

Cycling refers to a range of uses for bicycles, including commuter bicycling, as well as recreational uses, exercise, and children riding bikes to and from school. Cycling has experienced a 

resurgence by commuters looking for an alternative means to access the workplace, a healthier 

mode of transportation, and a new way to utilize connections to transit, particularly in cities and 

suburbs where traffic congestion and rising fuel prices are influencing commuters to consider 

alternative modes. In some areas, cycling as a commuter choice has doubled in recent years, 

and investment in infrastructure improvements to accommodate cyclists has increased.16

Initiatives, such as Complete Streets policies, recognize the importance of cycling in the proper 

context, and bike share programs have made bicycles more accessible to people, particularly in 

urban areas, college campuses, and communities pursuing sustainable transportation systems. 

However, bicycling safety issues persist and will become increasingly relevant as bicycling 
12

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

activity continues to expand, highlighting the importance of providing appropriate levels of 

bicycle accommodation on a range of transportation facilities. 

2.2 Characteristics of Cyclists

There are many factors that affect the safety of bicycling. It is crucial for the RSA team to understand the range of characteristics exhibited by cyclists using various facility types and how 

designs may or may not accommodate the range of bicycle types and cyclist abilities.

A wide range of bicycle, cyclist, and facility characteristics should be considered as part of an RSA.

In the past, cyclists were categorized corresponding to riding ability and comfort with speed 

and proximity to other vehicles to simplify considerations in the planning and design process. 

Now it is better understood that different abilities of cyclists should be considered on all types 

of facilities. To accommodate a range of cycling characteristics on any bicycle facility, it is important to understand the physical and operational attributes of bicycles and cyclists.

Space—The required width to accommodate a cyclist is the width of the cyclist plus the width 

to operate or maneuver a bicycle. Similarly, the required height to accommodate a cyclist 

considers bicycle and rider dimensions. Figure 3 illustrates the unobstructed space needed by 

a typical cyclist to safely maneuver. The width of a cyclist should be considered as it relates to 

facility design, as well as surrounding influencing factors. For example, on shared use paths, 

cyclists may prefer to ride side-by-side, or there may be a large number of bike trailers on the 

path. These conditions would require operating space beyond the minimums illustrated in 

Figure 3. Additionally, cyclists will lean into a curve at moderate or higher speeds, resulting in 

an angled riding axis, lower pedal clearance from the riding surface, and a possible need for 

greater horizontal clearance. The amount of space afforded to cyclists may directly impact their 

ability to safely navigate a route, as cyclists expend a high amount of mental effort to maintain course in narrow or constrained conditions rather than paying due attention to potential 

obstacles or harmful conflicts with other facility users.17
13

Basic Principles of Bicycle Safety

Figure 3. Operating Space for Cyclists.

18

Length—Relates to space needed for longitudinal clearance, which may be especially critical 

at intersections where motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians share space. Longitudinal 

space should consider the varying lengths of bicycles that are expected to use a facility and the 

impact on safety (see Figure 4). For example, at a midblock crossing of a shared use path, the 

space dedicated to a cyclist in the refuge area may need to adequately accommodate a bicycle 

and trailer without encroaching on the roadway. 

A. Adult Typical Bike

B. Adult Single Recumbent Bicycle

C. Additional Length for Trailer Bike

D. Additional Length for Child Trailer

E. Width for Child trailer

F. Adult Tandem Bicycle

Figure 4. Variation in Bicycle Dimensions.

12

Stability— Bicycles are generally unstable vehicles and rely on the user to maintain an upright 

orientation. The stability of a cyclist is affected by:

■ Travel speed.

■ Surface conditions.

■ Environmental factors.
14

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

Cyclists typically need to maintain a reasonable level of speed to remain stable. At slower 

speeds, cyclists begin to lose stability and will often “zigzag” to maintain stability. In the context 

of bicycle control, ”zigzagging” is moving from side-to-side (i.e., laterally) in an effort to maintain 

balance.17 This behavior is also performed at higher speeds with less lateral deflection. The 

speed and stability of a bicycle are related to its space requirements (i.e., the wider the zigzag 

movement, the more unobstructed lateral space required). 

Surface conditions can also affect the stability of a cyclist. Rough and slippery surfaces can 

contribute to a cyclist losing control. The environment can also play a role, with wet and windy 

conditions affecting traction and stability. Destabilizing wind conditions can be due to environmental conditions or air flow caused by large vehicles passing.

Speed, Deceleration, and Stopping—Travel speed may vary greatly depending on the terrain, 

type and quality of the bicycle equipment, and the skill and competency level of the cyclist. 

Often, differences in speed are most pronounced on long uphill gradients, where the relative physical abilities of cyclists are a significant factor. Conversely, on downhill gradients, even 

novice cyclists can achieve similar speeds to the more experienced cyclists and adjacent motor 

vehicles. Cyclist speed has a particularly important bearing on line-of-sight considerations at 

intersections and the ability for cyclists to safely navigate the intersection (including elements 

such as the distance required to stop, the time needed to decelerate, and surface conditions affecting friction). 

Vulnerability—Cyclists are vulnerable road users. Unlike motorists, who are afforded protection within the structure of a vehicle, bicycles offer little or no protection to a cyclist. Cyclists 

may or may not understand their vulnerability and, as a result, may allow real or perceived 

environmental factors, such as availability of dedicated bicycle facilities, frequency of conflict 

points with other users, time of day, surface quality, types of vehicles, and terrain to influence route selection and other riding behaviors. For example, cyclists may choose routes 

with more conflict points, such as at driveways or intersections, to reduce perceived conflicts 

with same-direction traffic.

2.3 The Cycling Network

Facilities for cyclists, whether on-road or off-road, should be part of a network that connects 

cyclists to urban, suburban, and rural land uses. The context of the road for a bicycle facility is 

a key element that should be considered in the design. The type and level of accommodation 

must be appropriate for the characteristics of the surrounding conditions. A “one-size-fits-all” 

approach may result in an underutilized facility or a facility that does not improve cycling safety, 

and, in some instances, may degrade cyclist safety. There are several factors that should be 

considered in all contexts to provide safe accommodations for cyclists.

Directness—The cycling network should be direct between key destinations, considering both 

distance and time.17 On a corridor level, it is important to understand the “desire lines” of cyclists 

accessing key destinations. While directness typically refers to the shortest path to access destinations, it is influenced by travel time factors (e.g., the speed of a route) that may be influenced 

by the number of stops, grade, and other factors. Frequent stops and steep, uphill sections 

along a corridor can be a significant burden to cyclists operating under their own power.

Facilities used by cyclists 

should be smoother than 

those deemed acceptable 

for motorized traffic. It is also 

important that debris be 

cleared from facilities used 

by cyclists.
15

Basic Principles of Bicycle Safety

Continuity and Connectivity—The cycling network should be continuous (i.e., without gaps 

or abrupt changes) and provide convenient linkages to destinations. Often, it is the transition 

between different land uses and environments where the nature of cycling accommodations 

changes. For example, a separated facility along public property may become a bicycle lane or 

an undesignated area where cyclists ride with traffic. Continuity may also relate to any aspect of 

a facility, such as available riding space or quality. 

Comfort—Cyclist comfort level and perceived risk should be considered, as they may influence route choice and riding behaviors. When presented with facilities on high-speed, highvolume roadways, some cyclists may be more comfortable when dedicated space is provided 

to create separation from motorized traffic. A lack of adequate riding space or a concern for 

personal safety will often influence route selection and other riding behaviors, including cyclist 

use of sidewalks. Within an area studied as part of an RSA, it is critical to understand that cyclist 

behavior is greatly influenced by route preference and the cyclist’s perceived risk of the route or 

path intended for their use. 

2.4 Crash Data Analysis Considerations

Crash data analysis is one method to identify factors contributing to collisions and to identify 

area-wide or location-specific crash trends that warrant further safety audit. However, an RSA 

team should consider that reported crashes may not capture the entire crash and injury picture. 

Typically, reported crashes only represent a fraction of the total number of cycling crashes 

occurring on public roadways. For many jurisdictions, official crash reporting does not include 

bicycle-only crashes that occur on the roadway, bicycles striking fixed objects, or crashes 

between cyclists and pedestrians. A multi-State study for FHWA based on hospital emergency 

department8 data suggests that typical State crash databases, even with a high rate of 

reporting, may only capture about one-fourth of the crashes serious enough to require treatment at a hospital emergency department and less than half of the crashes on the roadway 

that resulted in serious cyclist injuries.

Cycling crashes on sidewalks, parking areas, or off-roadway paths are also unlikely to be 

included in most State and local reported crash databases. At least one-fourth of the significant 

injuries in the hospital study resulted from crashes in non-roadway areas; about half of these 

were on sidewalks. Since the FHWA study was performed, there has been significant expansion in off-roadway infrastructure, including shared use paths. Data on crashes with motor 

vehicles on roadways or at roadway-path intersections should be available from State or local 

crash databases. However, data are typically lacking on how many cyclists are being injured in 

bicycle-only falls, crashes with other non-motorized users or objects, or in crashes in off-road 

areas, including shared used paths and path junctions. The RSA team should consider that the 

reported crashes only represent a portion of the crashes that have occurred. The RSA team 

should consider seeking other sources of data, such as hospital or emergency department 

records or indications of bicycle crashes from self-reports to area agencies. Local cyclists may be 

able to provide information on cycling conditions. The team should also focus on conflicts and 

conditions that are likely to have contributed to unreported crashes.

The RSA team 

should consider 

that the 

reported crashes 

only represent 

a portion of the 

bicycle-related 

crashes that 

occur.
16

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

2.5 Factors That Contribute to Bicycle Crashes

National, State, and local studies have highlighted some of the factors frequently associated 

with reported bicycle crashes with motor vehicles, including pre-crash maneuvers and events 

leading up to crashes. These descriptive statistics may help to identify crash trends and identify 

areas where RSAs may be conducted; however, RSAs should include an analysis of site-specific 

crash data to similarly identify trends in crash locations (e.g., intersections or segments), types 

(e.g., a vehicle turning into the path of cyclist or wrong-way cycling), injury level, time of day, 

and roadway and environmental factors that indicate operational or design issues potentially 

contributing to crashes. Since bicycle crash data may be scarce, detailed crash reports should 

also be examined to determine specific circumstances that may have contributed to crashes at 

individual locations. 

Finally, observing conditions and behaviors in the field is critical to a comprehensive understanding of the conditions underlying bicycle safety issues, because even detailed crash 

descriptions may not capture the nature of existing safety issues. RSAs are a useful proactive 

tool to identify issues on a system-wide or corridor-wide basis, including at locations where 

crashes may not have yet occurred (or been reported).

2.5.1 Location Factors

FHWA initiated a study of cycling crashes from six States in the early 1990s to gain an understanding of types of crashes, locations, and other factors associated with bicycle and pedestrian 

collisions with motor vehicles (see Figure 5).7 Key findings from the study include:

■ A majority of bicycle-motor vehicle collisions (approximately 70 percent) occurred in urban 

areas where more cycling occurs. 

■ Approximately one-half (51 percent) of the bicycle crashes occurred at intersections or 

were related to intersections, 22 percent occurred at junctions with commercial and private 

driveways or alleys, and the remaining 27 percent occurred on roadway segments. 

In compact urban areas with a dense street grid (and relatively short intersection spacing), an 

even higher proportion of collisions may occur at intersections. For example, an analysis of 

bicycle crashes in Cambridge, Massachusetts found that 68 percent occurred at intersection 

locations (39 percent unsignalized and 29 percent signalized).19 Other studies have analyzed 

trends in location by comparing urban and rural environments. Figure 5 compares intersectionrelated versus non-intersection-related crashes in North Carolina. In urban areas intersectionrelated crashes involving a cyclist were more prevalent than non-intersection crashes while in 

rural areas non-intersection related crashes were higher. 

Figure 5. Percentage of Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Crashes by Urban or Rural Locations in 

North Carolina.

20
17

Basic Principles of Bicycle Safety

Geographic information systems (GIS) or other spatial analyses can help to identify area-wide 

crash concentrations, and corridors or intersections that may benefit from an RSA. For example, 

in the Orlando metropolitan area, one-fourth of bicycle crashes with motor vehicles were 

concentrated on 19 corridors that made up less than one percent of the street centerline miles. 

These corridors may represent high motor vehicle and high bicycle volume corridors and may 

present an opportunity to make corridor-wide safety improvements.

Spatial analyses of specific crash locations may range from simple, such as creating a push-pin 

map, to more detailed analyses using GIS or other software. Examples of spatial crash analyses 

using GIS are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Examples of Spatial Analyses of Mapped Crash Locations. Different types of spatial analyses are available to 

help identify high-crash zones, corridors, or intersections for RSAs. Areas with similar characteristics, but which have 

not yet experienced crashes, may be considered for similar treatments proactively.

21

2.5.2 Speed Factors

The speed differential between vehicles and bicycles on higher speed roadways is greater than 

on lower speed roadways, which may present additional challenges for cyclists and motorists, such as judging gaps between vehicles when crossing the road or the time and distance 

required for vehicles to stop or overtake a cyclist. Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between 

the posted speed limit of a road and the severity of a crash involving cyclists. The severity of a 

crash involving a cyclist and motorist increases exponentially with speed. In rural areas, many 

two-lane highways are designed for relatively high speeds and provide few separate accommodations or alternative lower-speed routes between destinations for cyclists. Although the overall 

frequency of bicycle crashes tends to be higher in urban areas, where more cycling takes place, 

crashes in rural areas more often result in fatal or serious injuries. For example, in North Carolina, 

fatalities resulted 3.5 times more often from a crash in rural areas compared with those in urban 

areas of the State.22
18

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

Figure 7. Percentage of Bicyclists Killed or Seriously Injured in Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Crashes 

by Posted Speed Limit in North Carolina.

22

2.5.3 Seasonal Factors, Weather, and Surface Conditions

The occurrence of bicycle crashes varies substantially by season, as the prevailing weather has a 

significant impact on the number of bicycle trips, surface conditions, and visibility. The multiState FHWA study noted a strong seasonal trend in crashes, with 69 percent of collisions occurring over the months of April to September (spring and summer).7

 These trends are likely associated with variation in level of riding activity across the seasons but could also incorporate other 

risk factors that vary by season. For example, some regions would likely see different trends 

depending on year-round temperatures, rainfall, snow and ice, and other seasonal factors, such 

as presence of college campuses and trends in tourism. In high-tourist areas, both drivers and 

cyclists may be unfamiliar with roadways, traffic patterns, or local traffic laws, and may need 

more wayfinding assistance, among other possible remedies. 

2.5.4 Behavioral Factors

Behavioral factors of cyclists and motorists are often identified through a process called crash 

typing. Most crash report forms and the resultant crash databases do not capture details of 

cyclist and motorist maneuvers, pre-crash position, or other factors leading up to the crash. 

Crash typing was developed to enhance the understanding of events leading up to bicycle 

and motor vehicle collisions and the factors associated with such events. This knowledge may 

be used to better target countermeasures or aid in development of new countermeasures for 

common crash scenarios.23

The most common types of crashes found in both rural and urban areas from the six States in 

the early 1990s study by FHWA7 are shown in Table 1, with more recent data from North Carolina22 and the Orlando metropolitan area included, as well.24 The data from Orlando represent 

crash distributions in a large metropolitan area, while the data from North Carolina represent 

trends from all urban areas (municipalities) and from all rural areas of North Carolina. The crash 

Agencies with access to crash data may find it useful to use the Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool 

(PBCAT). PBCAT is a crash typing software intended to assist practitioners with improving walking and 

bicycling safety through the development and analysis of a database containing details associated with 

crashes between motor vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/
19

Basic Principles of Bicycle Safety

types shown in Table 1 accounted for nearly 89 percent of all crashes in the six-State FHWA 

study, approximately 84 and 90 percent of crashes in urban and rural areas of North Carolina, 

and 76 percent of crashes in the Orlando metropolitan area. 

As the data in the table illustrate, the distribution of crash types may be different for each area 

and will depend on site-specific conditions. The RSA team should consider ways that the environment and roadway conditions may have contributed to such crashes as well as behaviors 

that should be addressed through enforcement and education. 

Table 1. Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Crash Types from FHWA’s Six-State Study7, North Carolina, and 

Orlando, Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).

Bicycle Crash Type Groups Percentage of Crashes

FHWA

(early 

‘90s)

North 

Carolina 

Urban

(‘04-’08)

North 

Carolina 

Rural

(‘04-’08)

Orlando 

Metropolitan 

Area

(‘03-’04)

CROSSING PATHS

Motorist failure to yield – 

intersection

14.4 13.9 5.5 14.0

Bicyclist failure to yield – intersection 16.8 15.3 7.9 14.0

Bicyclist failure to yield – midblock 11.7 8.6 10.8 9.3

Motorist failure to yield – midblock 

(driveway/alley)

6.9 8.5 3.0 10.1

Turning errors – bicyclist and 

motorist

1.4 1.5 1.7 2.7

Bicyclist failure to clear intersection 1.4 1.3 0.2 0.0

Crossing Path Total 52.6 49.1 29.1 50.1

PARALLEL PATHS

Motorist turned/merged into path of 

bicyclist

12.1 13.2 6.9 8.1

Motorist overtaking bicyclist 8.6 8.9 29.3 8.1

Bicyclist turned/merged into path of 

motorist

7.3 6.8 16.9 5.4

Bicyclist overtaking motorist 2.7 1.6 0.7 0.6

Operator wrong side/head-on 

(motorist or bicyclist)

2.8 2.1 5.6 2.5

Motorist loss of control 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3

Bicyclist loss of control 1.8 2.2 1.3 1.0

Parallel Path Total 35.9 35.1 61.2 26

Total for Common Crash Types Listed 88.5 84.2 90.3 76.1
20

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

Despite the differences in the types of crashes, there are some general trends that merit 

consideration by the RSA team. One of the most frequent group of crashes in the national, 

North Carolina urban, and Orlando metropolitan area studies involved motorist failure to yield 

at intersections (signalized, sign-controlled, or uncontrolled). These crashes include motorists 

pulling out or driving into intersections and into the path of bicyclists on initial crossing paths. 

Motorists and bicyclists may fail to stop for a red signal indication or a stop sign, or pull into the 

path of each other at a stop-controlled location after initially stopping, including to make right 

turns on red or to make right or left turns at stop signs (see Figure 8). 

Figure 8. Crossing Path Crash - Motorist Failure to Yield at Stop-Controlled Intersection.

24

Cyclists may contribute to these types of crashes by riding the wrong way (against traffic), 

on the sidewalk, or both. Nearly one-third (32 percent) of all cyclist collisions in the FHWA 

study involved cyclists riding against traffic; for intersection collisions, the proportion was 42 

percent.7 The Orlando metropolitan area study found that 43 percent of cyclists were riding 

against traffic. Both wrong-way and sidewalk riding place cyclists in positions where they are 

not expected by motorists at intersections and at driveways. Crashes at driveways are categorized as motorist failure to yield – midblock. The RSA team should examine conditions that may 

contribute to wrong-way or sidewalk riding, as well as conditions at intersections that might 

contribute to these types of crashes. Cyclists may be using sidewalks because they are uncomfortable with traffic or roadway conditions. Sidewalk and wrong-way riding may also be prevalent if shared use paths do not have adequate connections in both directions of a multilane 

or divided roadway. 

The category of bicyclists failing to yield at intersections was also a frequent group of crashes in 

the national, North Carolina urban, and Orlando metropolitan area studies. Cyclist ride-throughs 

at stop signs or traffic signals are a frequent crash type in urban areas. Frequent stops along a 

corridor can be a significant burden to cyclists trying to conserve energy or avoid unclipping 

from foot pedals. A route that provides few stops for cyclists could improve safety and mobility 

for cyclists. These crashes also can occur when a cyclist is attempting to cross a multilane or 

high-volume roadway and has difficulty identifying a suitable gap in traffic. Side streets on 

high-volume, high-speed roads are often stop-controlled with no controls on the main road 

and may be a challenge for cyclists. Factors or conditions similar to those described at junctions 

may also affect access from commercial or private driveways (categorized as bicyclist failure to 

yield – midblock). Parking or other sight distance issues are among other factors that could also 

contribute to such crashes. 

Traffic signals without automated detection for bicycles may contribute to cyclists riding 

through after slowing or stopping. Cyclists may also fail to clear an intersection before being 
21

Basic Principles of Bicycle Safety

struck by motorists who may or may not have stop-control in their direction of travel (bicyclist 

failure to clear intersection). This crash type may also be difficult to identify from crash data, 

but signal timing can be used to verify adequate clearance intervals for both cold starts after a 

recent signal change and for riders proceeding at the end of the green indication. 

Among parallel path crashes, the most frequent group of crashes in the national, North Carolina 

urban, and Orlando metropolitan area studies was motorist turned or merged into the path of a 

bicyclist. This crash type includes motorists turning left into the path of a through bicyclist, most 

often from the opposite direction but sometimes from the same initial direction as the bicyclist. 

Such crashes may occur when a motorist is looking for a gap to turn left and oncoming bicyclists are obscured from view by approaching motorists in front of the cyclist or in another lane. 

Figure 9 illustrates how such crashes may occur with cyclists.

Figure 9. Parallel Path Crash—Left-Turning Motorist Failure to Yield at Signalized 

Intersection.

24

This group also includes motor vehicles striking bicyclists when making right turns. The motorist 

may make a “right hook” maneuver because they misjudge the speed of the bicyclist traveling 

along the right side of the roadway or they mistakenly believe that the bicyclist should yield 

right-of-way (see Figure 10). 

Figure 10. Parallel Path Crash—Right-Turning Motorist Failure to Yield at Signalized 

Intersection.

24

Crashes involving right-turning vehicles can also occur just after a signal change when 

drivers planning to turn right do not see bicyclists approaching in their blind spot. Another 

cause includes drivers turning after waiting for pedestrians to clear from a crosswalk without 

observing a bicycle approaching from the rear.
22

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

The group of crashes involving motorists overtaking bicyclists may include situations where 

the motorist may fail to detect the bicyclist in time due to a curve or other sight distance issue 

(see Figure 11), the bicyclist may suddenly swerve left to avoid a pothole or other obstacle, 

or the overtaking motorist may detect the cyclist but fail to allow adequate time or space for 

safe passing. This type of crash represented between eight and nine percent of motor vehiclebicycle crashes in the six State FHWA study, the North Carolina urban areas, and the Orlando 

metropolitan area. In rural North Carolina, this type of crash represented nearly 30 percent of 

motor vehicle-bicycle crashes, indicating that this may be a more significant issue in rural areas. 

Measures to improve sight distance, reduce vehicle speeds, enhance lighting, or provide delineated space for cyclists may be appropriate, depending on conditions present. 

Figure 11. Parallel Path Crash - Motorist Failure to Detect Cyclist on a Curve at Night.

23

Riding at night is also a frequent crash occurrence among cyclists as reported in the FHWA 

study7 and in the Orlando metropolitan area study23, with crashes involving cyclists during lowlight conditions accounting for 21.3 percent and 22.1 percent of bicycle crashes, respectively. 

However, it is not clear how many of these crashes involved cyclists using active lighting—that 

is white headlamps or headlights facing the front and red taillights facing the back. Active 

lighting is important for motorists to be able to detect cyclists at night. Most States have active 

bicycle lighting laws that should be supported and enforced. 

Although not a large percentage of crashes, turning errors involve either the motorist or 

bicyclist turning into the wrong lane at the end of their turn. Driveway and intersection design 

may facilitate slower turning speeds to help reduce the chances of this type of collision. 

In addition to the bicycle crash type groups listed in Table 1, there may be other bicycle crash 

types to consider. For example, parked vehicles cannot only contribute to sight distance issues 

but can also be a factor for parallel path crashes involving bicyclists overtaking parked motor 

vehicles.23 This crash type includes situations involving bicyclists striking parked motor vehicles 

or extended motor vehicle doors (dooring). Areas where there is a large amount of on-street 

parking may have a higher incidence of dooring crashes. For example, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, dooring accounted for 20 percent of all bicycle-motor vehicle crashes.19

The RSA team should consider these trends when conducting an RSA. However, a sitespecific analysis of data and detailed field observations are essential when conducting an RSA. 

Chapter 3 provides details to consider beyond analyzing crash data. 
Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

23

3

Chapter 3. Cyclists in the Road Safety Audit Process

This section provides detailed information pertaining to cyclists in the RSA process. General 

information about RSAs, such as RSA policies and procedures and generalized prompt lists, are 

included in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines.

10 The Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines 

and Prompt Lists11 can also be used as a reference when conducting RSAs, particularly when 

considering how different modes of travel interact.

3.1 What is an RSA?

As noted in Chapter 1, an RSA is a formal safety examination of a future roadway plan or project 

or an in-service facility and is conducted by an independent, experienced, and multidisciplinary RSA team.

The primary focus of an RSA is safety while working within the context of mobility, access, 

surrounding land use, and/or aesthetics. RSAs enhance safety by identifying potential safety 

issues affecting all road users under all conditions and suggesting measures for consideration 

by the design team or responsible agency. 

An RSA is not simply a standards check. Standards checks are part of the design process to 

ensure adherence to design standards and guidelines. Although the RSA team may identify 

safety issues by comparing items of concern to standards, the general intention of the RSA is 

to identify areas where applied standards may interact with road user behaviors to generate a 

potential safety issue.
24

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

3.2 What Should be Considered for an RSA?

In addition to using an RSA as a tool to improve safety performance of facilities in their jurisdiction, public agencies may wish to conduct RSAs oriented to address safety issues related to 

specific user groups, such as bicyclists. While all RSAs should include a review of pedestrian and 

cyclist safety, a bicycle-oriented RSA may be undertaken to improve identified cyclist safety 

issues that may have resulted from changes in land use and mode choice over time or inadequate consideration of cycling in previous planning and design processes. Specific areas to 

assess during an RSA, which are presented in the prompt list, include:

■ Streets or Paths.

■ Structures (Bridges or Tunnels).

■ Intersections, Crossings, and Interchanges.

■ Transitions.

■ Transit.

3.3 Who Should Conduct RSAs?

An increasing number of State and local transportation agencies are using RSAs as a proactive 

tool for improving safety. Moreover, cyclist safety is a major concern for many local agencies 

and, as such, they may find a greater need for conducting a bicycle-oriented RSA. Since the 

independence of the audit team is a requirement of an RSA, local agencies are encouraged to 

contact the State Department of Transportation (DOT), the Local/Tribal Technical Assistance 

Program (LTAP/TTAP) center, the FHWA division office, or the FHWA resource center for assistance in finding team members. The local agency may also find it helpful to contact neighboring local agencies directly to assemble an independent team. Considerations for the RSA 

team responsibilities, skills, and size are discussed in Section 3.5.

3.4 When Should RSAs be Conducted?

RSAs can be conducted at any stage in a project’s life:

■ A pre-construction RSA (planning and design stages) examines a road before it is built, at the 

planning/feasibility stage or the design (preliminary or detailed design) stage. An RSA at this 

stage identifies potential safety issues before crashes occur. For example, an existing bicycle 

route may approach an intersection widening project. Cyclists must be safely accommodated 

through the new geometric layout. The earlier a pre-construction RSA is conducted, 

the greater is the potential for designers to efficiently and effectively remedy possible 

safety concerns.

The definition of an RSA contains four key terms:

• Formal—an eight-step procedure is followed.

• Safety Examination—the focus is to identify potential safety issues.

• Independent—RSA team members should be independent of facility ownership, design, and operation to ensure 

an unbiased review.

• Multidisciplinary—various backgrounds help ensure all aspects of safety performance can be adequately 

addressed.
25

Cyclists in the Road Safety Audit Process

■ Construction RSAs (work zone, changes in design during construction, and pre-opening) 

examine temporary traffic management plans associated with construction, or other 

roadwork and changes in design during construction. For example, roadside construction 

barriers may eliminate a bicycle lane or available shoulder where cyclists ride, causing them 

to enter the mainline traffic stream. The RSA should assess the safety of cyclists under these 

conditions and examine measures to mitigate potential issues. RSAs can also be conducted 

when construction is completed but before the roadway is opened to traffic.

■ A post-construction or operational RSA (i.e., of an existing road) examines a road that is 

operating and is usually conducted to address a demonstrated crash risk. Many older 

roadways, in particular, were not designed with adequate consideration of the needs of 

bicyclists. Conducting an RSA on existing facilities presents opportunities to retroactively 

improve bicyclist safety and to consider the needs of bicyclists where cycling activity has 

increased since construction. 

3.5 How is an RSA Conducted?

The eight steps recommended by FHWA to conduct an RSA, along with suggestions for 

adequately considering cyclists in the process, are described in this section. Figure 12 illustrates 

the progression of these steps. The responsibilities of the project owner/design team and the 

RSA team may vary during the course of an RSA. 

Figure 12. Eight-Step RSA Process.
26

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

Step 1: Identify Project or Existing Road for RSA

The facility or project owner identifies the location(s) to be reviewed during the RSA. The owner 

should develop clear parameters for the RSA (the term “owner” in this document to refers to the 

person or agency that owns or is responsible for the project or facility). Evaluating the safety of 

cyclists may require the RSA team to investigate a parallel bicycle path or route, transition points 

for bicycle facilities both inside and outside of the RSA study area, or other conditions that may 

affect the safety of cyclists in the study area selected. Ultimately, parameters should be set that 

define the RSA scope, schedule, team requirements, tasks to be completed, report format and 

content, and response procedures.

Step 2: Select Independent and Multidisciplinary RSA Team

The facility or project owner is responsible for selecting the RSA team or the RSA team leader. To 

ensure there is no conflict of interest and a fair and unbiased evaluation will be conducted, the 

RSA team must be independent of the operation and design of the location(s) being assessed 

and cannot include members of the party charged with the development of the original plans 

or the facility owner. The facility or project owner may select a set of qualified individuals from 

within its own organization, another transportation agency, or contract with an outside group. 

If a non-independent assessor wishes to evaluate the cyclist safety elements of a project, the 

process may still be valuable but should not be considered a formal RSA. 

The facility or project owner should select an RSA team that possesses a combined set of skills 

that address the most critical aspects of the project. For RSAs with a significant cycling component (i.e. bicycle RSAs), the team members should be aware of constraints and issues that 

affect cyclists and have a background in (1) road safety, (2) traffic operations, (3) road design, (4) 

cycling safety, operations, or planning (or someone who understands the skills necessary for 

cycling on the road with traffic), (5) transit operations, (6) enforcement (e.g., bike patrol officer), 

and/or (7) emergency medical services. 

The owner should consider including individuals from local cycling organizations or 

bicycle action committees, as they may provide valuable insights and detailed knowledge 

of the local area. 

The size of the RSA team may vary. Small teams typically provide the greatest ability for team 

members to significantly contribute insights during the audit but may be limited in experience 

with the various areas of expertise. While three members may be adequate for some projects, 

that size may be insufficient for larger, more complex projects. The best practice is to have the 

smallest team that brings all the necessary knowledge and experience to the process.

Bicycles are 

almost always 

permitted to 

travel along 

the same 

roadways as 

motor vehicles.

UVC§11-1202 

is a statute 

that has been 

adopted in all 

50 States and 

grants cyclists 

the same rights 

and duties as 

motorists. A 

member of 

the RSA team 

should be 

familiar with the 

laws applicable 

to cyclists and 

the interaction 

with other 

modes.
27

Cyclists in the Road Safety Audit Process

Step 3: Conduct Start-up Meeting to Exchange Information

The purpose of the start-up meeting is to ensure the owner/design team and all RSA team 

members understand the purpose, schedule, and roles and responsibilities of all participants 

in the RSA. This meeting helps establish lines of communication between the RSA team leader 

and the owner/design team. At the end of the meeting, all parties should have a clear understanding of the scope of the RSA to be undertaken and each of their roles and responsibilities. 

Specific topics of discussion should include:

■ RSA scope and objectives.

■ Relevant data, information, drawings, aerials, photographs, etc.

■ Design constraints, standards used, related bicycle plans, and findings of previous studies.

■ Local laws/statutes describing rights and duties of all road users, some of which are 

described in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Legal Movements for Cyclists.

If possible, the owner and/or design team should provide data describing the overall cycling 

characteristics of the location(s) being assessed. This could include cyclist crash data, vehicular 

and cyclist traffic volumes, locations of key cyclist generators, and local stakeholder requests 

and complaints. A listing of the potential data used in an RSA is shown in Table 2. Preferably, 

any available data should be provided prior to the start-up meeting for review and analysis by 

the RSA team. This enables the team to familiarize itself with the location, understand potential 

safety issues, and ask more focused questions at the start-up meeting. 

Cyclist “taking the lane” 

at an intersection is 

legal. However, less 

experienced cyclists may 

not feel confident doing 

this, especially with large 

traffic volumes or at 

wide intersections.

2-step turn for cyclists.

Left-turn options are 

lawful in most States. 

Less experienced cyclists 

may not feel comfortable 

merging across traffic 

lanes to make a “vehicle 

left turn.”

Cyclist making a “vehicle 

left turn.” May be difficult 

in the face of heavy 

through traffic and/or 

left-turn volumes.
28

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

Table 2: Potential Data for Conducting RSAs.

Requested Information

Traffic Volume Data (minimum 1 year)

Average vehicular daily traffic (ADT)

Truck and other heavy vehicle usage (usually expressed as percentage of traffic)

Intersection turning movement counts

Bicycle volumes (distribution of adult/child cyclists, direction of travel for cyclists, etc.)*

Pedestrian volumes

Crash Data (minimum preceding 3 years)

Individual police crash reports

Hospital crash/injury data

Reference/summary crash statistics

Crash pin maps

Collision diagrams (usually developed by the RSA team)

Other Pertinent Information

Aerial photographs of study area

Location of cyclist (and pedestrian) generators (such as schools, transit stops, recreational 

facilities)

Previous safety study reports (if applicable)

Inventory of existing cycling and pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, curb ramps, trails, 

greenways, etc.)

Locations of schools

Existing/future roadway, signing and marking, and signalization plans

Transit route information, including ridership (if available)

Vehicle speed data (speed limits and measured speeds)

School bus/walking route (safe routes to school) information

Agency and citizen correspondence pertinent to study area

Future development plans (including bicycle/greenway/trail/pedestrian master plans)

Complete streets policies

Roadway design standards

*Bicycle volumes are beneficial, as they give the context for other data.
29

Cyclists in the Road Safety Audit Process

Step 4: Perform Field Reviews under Various Conditions

The RSA team should review the entire site (as well as plans if conducting an RSA of a design), 

documenting potential safety issues and project constraints (e.g., available right-of-way, impact 

on adjacent land, etc.). Issues identified during the review of the supplied data should be verified in the field. Key elements to observe include:

■ Site characteristics (road geometry, sight distance, clear zones, drainage, surface condition, 

signing and marking, lighting, barriers, etc.).

■ Traffic characteristics (traffic/pedestrian/bicycle volumes, movements, speeds, 

interactions, etc.).

■ Surrounding land uses (including bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle generators).

■ Human factors issues (such as road user expectancy, reactions, and other behaviors).

A thorough field review for an RSA with a significant cycling component should consider (at a 

minimum) the following:

■ Various conditions—The RSA team should review the site during the daytime and nighttime 

to experience conditions from the perspective of all roadway users, especially cyclists. This is 

very important in identifying elements that may increase the risk of cyclists being involved in 

a collision. The RSA team should walk, bicycle, and drive (if on-road facilities) on or along the 

cycling facilities and note potential issues with the physical elements, as well as the behavior 

of cyclists and other road users. The team should ride bicycles that are consistent with 

equipment used by the cyclists on the facility at speeds that are typical of most riders.24 The 

team should also ride in groups or individually based on prevalent conditions. Varying from 

typical conditions may hinder observation of potential safety issues as encountered by the 

cycling population.

The field review should also include visits during both peak and non-peak traffic conditions. 

Cyclist safety, mobility, and access are heavily influenced by traffic conditions and issues may 

change depending on various traffic conditions.

In general, RSAs should consider traffic flow periods, lighting conditions, and other time of 

day or potentially day of the week factors and plan site visits accordingly to observe conditions during periods of elevated crash potential.

■ Visibility of cyclists, especially at night—Bicycles are vehicles and are almost always 

permitted to travel along the same roadways as motor vehicles. However, bicycles have a 

slender profile that reduces their conspicuity to motorists. Additionally, although required 

by law to have lighting, bicycles are generally not equipped with the same lighting features 

used by motor vehicles to see and be seen at night. During nighttime or low-lighting 

conditions, cyclists may not be conspicuous to motorized traffic due to bicycle factors 

but also to roadway lighting factors, such as maintenance of lighting, lighting output, and 

spacing of lighting. The effect of these factors on the safety of cyclists should be investigated 

by the RSA team.

A team prepares for an RSA 

on a shared use path.
30

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

■ Wide range of cyclist abilities—A wide range of cycling skills, capabilities, and comfort levels 

must be considered. The RSA team should be aware of differentials in cognitive and mobility 

levels across several age groups, particularly when children use the facility. For example, skilled 

cyclists may have a better understanding of lane positioning techniques than less skilled 

cyclists (see Figure 14). 

Figure 14. Techniques to Minimize Sight Distance Issues for Cyclists. Cyclists who ride near the edge of the roadway 

through curves (diagram left - rider A) will have less sight distance than those riding away from the pavement 

edge (diagram left - rider B).

25 This technique may be particularly critical for maintaining visibility at unsignalized 

intersections (diagram right).

■ Expectancy of cyclists by motorists—Drivers who are focused solely on vehicular traffic 

and associated traffic controls may not give the appropriate attention to other road users, 

particularly cyclists and pedestrians. At intersections, drivers typically consider conflicting 

vehicular traffic and may not look for bicyclist traffic, especially when cyclists are approaching 

from different directions than motor vehicles. Cyclists may not ride in mainstream traffic but 

rather along the roadside or edge of a travel lane where a vehicle to the left of the cyclist 

may obstruct the view of other turning vehicles. Also, cyclists may be positioned in the blind 

spots of same-direction right-turning vehicles. Figure 15 depicts a range of typical issues for 

cyclists with respect to driver visibility and consideration of bicycle activity. The RSA team 

should examine the interaction of drivers and cyclists to determine if they are using effective 

scanning techniques and establishing visual communication with other modes. 

The prompt lists are designed to be used during the field review to remind the RSA team of 

numerous aspects of cyclist safety. This includes a review of the prompt lists by the RSA team in 

the field for each type of cycling facility encountered, annotating any issues on paper and with 

photographs. A more detailed description of the organization of the Guidelines and prompt 

lists and how to use them is provided in Chapter 4.
31

Cyclists in the Road Safety Audit Process

Figure 15. RSA Considerations with Respect to the Expectancy of Cyclists by Motorists. 

Left Cross

Left-turning motorists may 

not see cyclists outside of 

vision cone looking for gaps 

in oncoming traffic.

Right Hook

Right-turning motorists do not see 

cyclists going through intersection in 

rear blind spot. Risk is increased with 

heavy right-turning traffic volumes or 

with a bus or large truck.

Drivers of left-turning 

vehicles may only be aware 

of oncoming vehicles in the 

roadway and not cyclists on 

the side path.

In general, cyclists’ 

movements should be 

coordinated with other 

movements and phases 

at the intersection in a 

manner that is consistent 

and predictable with typical 

intersection operations.

Cyclists on side path may be 

outside of motorists’ cone of 

vision, thus may not be visible 

to motorists entering the 

intersection.

Stopped vehicles (especially 

right-turning vehicles) may 

block path crossings.
32

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

Step 5: Conduct RSA Analysis and Prepare Report of Findings

The RSA team should conduct an analysis to identify safety issues based on data from the field 

visit and preliminary documents and prepare a report of the findings. Identification of safety 

issues should not be solely based on cyclists. Safety issues affecting all roadway users should be 

acknowledged and considered in this process. 

The safety issues may be prioritized by the RSA team based on the documented (through crash 

data, exposure analyses, etc.) or perceived risk. Perceived risk may be based on the expected 

crash frequency and the expected severity of a crash. Expected crash frequency is qualitatively 

estimated on the basis of expected exposure (i.e., how many road users will likely be exposed to 

the identified safety issue) and probability (i.e., how likely is it that a collision will result from the 

identified issue). Expected crash severity is qualitatively estimated on the basis of such factors 

as anticipated speeds, expected collision types, and the likelihood that vulnerable road users 

will be exposed. These two risk elements (frequency and severity) may be combined to obtain a 

qualitative risk assessment on the basis of the matrix shown in Table 3. 

Table 3: Prioritization Matrix

Frequency 

of Crashes

Severity of Crashes

Possible/Minor 

Injury

Moderate 

Injury

Serious 

Injury Fatal

Frequent Moderately High High Highest Highest

Occasional Middle Moderately

High

High Highest

Infrequent Low Middle Moderately

High

High

Rare Lowest Low Middle High

For each identified safety issue, the RSA team generates a list of possible measures to mitigate 

the crash potential and/or severity of a potential crash. Measures should consider engineering, 

education, enforcement, and emergency medical services, or any other actions that may be 

beneficial to user safety on the facility. 

The RSA team should prepare a report that includes a brief description of the project, a listing of 

the RSA team members or agencies participating in the RSA, a listing of the data and information used in conducting the RSA, and a summary of findings and proposed safety measures. The 

report should include pictures and diagrams that may be useful to further illustrate the issues 

and countermeasures.
33

Cyclists in the Road Safety Audit Process

Step 6: Present RSA Findings to Owner/Design Team

The RSA findings and potential opportunities for improvement are presented to the owner/

design team. The purpose of this meeting is to establish a basis for writing the RSA report 

and to ensure that the report will adequately address issues that are within the scope of the 

RSA process. This is another opportunity for discussion and clarification. The project owner/

design team may ask questions to seek clarification on the RSA findings or suggest additional/

alternative mitigation measures. At the conclusion of this step, the RSA report can be finalized by the RSA team. 

Step 7: Prepare Formal Response

Once the owner and/or design team have reviewed the RSA report, they should prepare a 

written response to its findings. The response should outline what actions the owner and/or 

design team will take with respect to each safety concern listed in the RSA report. The RSA findings may be presented in a public meeting or the report could be made available to the public 

to build support for the findings and the overall RSA process.

Step 8: Incorporate Findings into the Project when Appropriate

After the response to the RSA report is prepared, the project owner and/or design team should 

work to implement the agreed-upon safety measures or create an implementation plan. Implementation of the suggested measures is at the discretion of these parties based on their project 

schedules and available funds.

3.6 Anticipated Challenges in Conducting Bicycle-Oriented RSAs

The following are some of the key challenges faced when conducting bicycle-related RSAs:

■ Ensuring the needs of all roadway users are considered—Whereas the focus of these 

Guidelines and materials is on cyclists, it is paramount that the needs of all users are 

considered when conducting an RSA. This includes not only understanding design principles 

but also the laws that affect all users. Failure to consider all users appropriately may result in 

potential safety issues going unnoticed by the RSA team. 

■ Identifying effective measures for cyclists—RSAs not only are used to identify and define 

issues but to provide suggestions for addressing safety concerns. Mitigation measures 

and strategies may be categorized as near-term (e.g., signing, pavement markings, and 

maintenance activities), intermediate (e.g., projects involving construction but no additional 

right-of-way, such as intersection improvements), or long-term (e.g., right-of-way acquisitions 

for off-road paths). Significant reductions in cyclists’ exposure or crash risk may require 

measures that are not feasible in the near or intermediate term, such as developing a 

larger network of bicycling facilities. For this reason, the RSA findings should recognize and 

promote ways to accomplish greater benefits through the long-range planning process to 

comprehensively address cyclist safety when future opportunities arise. 
34

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

■ Overcoming opposition to cycling accommodations—It is a goal of the USDOT to have 

fully integrated active transportation networks, including well-connected walking and 

bicycling networks.26 Various sections of Title 23, Title 49, and Title 42 of the U.S. Code and 

the Code of Federal Regulations describe how bicyclists and pedestrians should be included 

in the planning process and should not be adversely affected by transportation projects. 

Implementing mitigation measures and strategies identified during the RSA process may 

be difficult, particularly when funding sources are limited. To address this challenge, the RSA 

team may need to identify the magnitude and severity of safety issues facing cyclists in the 

study area while demonstrating the benefits of potential mitigation measures and strategies.

■ Considering the relationship between agencies and the public in bicycle-oriented RSAs—

Bicycle-oriented RSAs should involve local cycling and/or community groups either as part 

of the RSA team or as a resource for the RSA team. Members of these groups may be most 

capable of providing the cyclist’s perspective. An RSA may even be initiated at the request of 

such a group. It is important for the RSA team to consider the role these organizations can 

play in the improvement process when planning an RSA. Two effective methods of involving 

the public in the RSA process are:

● Providing RSA training to community cyclists and/or residential participants. RSA training 

can be provided to community participants before the RSA. Some agencies have trained 

community members who “volunteer” to participate on RSA teams.

● Holding a public meeting prior to the RSA to inform the public of the RSA and to receive 

input from community cyclists and/or residents. Comment cards and diagramming of 

known issues can be completed at the public meeting and then presented during the RSA 

kick-off meeting.
Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

35

4

Chapter 4. Using the Bicycle RSA Prompt Lists

4.1 Purpose of the Prompt Lists

The intent of the prompt lists are to assist RSA team members in identifying potential safety 

issues affecting cyclists and gain a more detailed understanding of conditions contributing to 

these issues. The RSA team should be familiar with the references and principles described in 

Chapter 2 before using the prompt lists. The prompt lists are a useful tool to help RSA teams 

identify the range of design, operational, behavioral, and policy elements that may affect 

cyclists’ safety. RSA teams should not rely on the prompt lists as a simple yes/no checklist or 

assume the list covers all issues affecting the safety of cyclists. Rather, the list is intended to 

“prompt” the members’ thoughts and judgment. It is the responsibility of the RSA team to 

address cyclist safety in a realistic and thoughtful manner, using the prompt lists as a guide to 

help address a potentially wide range of issues, including issues unique to a specific area.

4.2 Organization of the Prompt Lists

The following describe the organizational and hierarchical structure of the provided tools:

■ Master Prompt List—presents the general considerations for cyclists in the RSA process and 

serves as an outline for the detailed prompt lists. The master prompt list is the least detailed, 

consisting of 12 major topic areas and 5 RSA zones.

■ Detailed Prompt Lists (Sub-prompt)—presents a more detailed list of considerations for the 

RSA team. The detailed prompts are organized by zone, as follows.

● Section A: Street or Path—describes potential issues on streets, trails, or paths that are used 

by cyclists.

● Section B: Structures—describes potential issues regarding riding on bridges, in tunnels, or 

on other structures that may limit the dedicated width, limit the visibility of other users, or 

lower the expectancy of the presence of other users.
36

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

● Section C: Intersections, Crossings, and Interchanges—describes potential issues 

where cycling routes intersect with each other or a facility designated for other modes of 

travel. This may include intersections of streets or paths, railroad crossings, or crossings at 

interchanges.

● Section D: Transitions—describes areas where designated cycling facilities transition from 

one type to another, such as from an off-street path to an on-street facility. Some of the 

issues that may occur at transitions are also covered in Sections A and C; however, more 

detailed site-specific issues are discussed in this section.

● Section E: Transit—describes potential issues specific to transit locations (e.g., bus stops 

and light rail stops). Particular emphasis is placed on issues at bus stops, as this transit mode 

is most used and most frequently interacts with cyclists.

Figure 16 shows an example prompt list with an annotated key to introduce users to the structure and level of detail.

Figure 16. Prompt List Key.

The detailed prompts, or sub-prompts, are accompanied by descriptions for the RSA team’s 

consideration. These may be further categorized as on-road or off-road accommodations (see 

Glossary of Terms in Section 1.6); however, if these categories are not used, the prompt refers 

to all facilities.

A.2: Are design features present that adversely impact the use of the facility by cyclists?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.2.4: Would bicycle lanes or 

separated facilities improve 

conditions for cyclists and if so, 

is there adequate separation 

between vehicular and bicycle 

traffic?

On-road accommodations: As shown in Figure 17, 

shared lanes are typically appropriate on lowspeed, low-volume roads. Bike lanes or separated 

facilities may be more appropriate on high-speed, 

high-volume roads. Adequacy of the separation 

distance of these facilities is a function of vehicle 

speed, volume, and composition. Beyond meeting 

minimum standards, the width of on-road facilities 

should consider the wind impacts from passing 

heavy vehicles. 

The high-speed roadway in the photo to the left 

has a wide bicycle lane designated by an 8 inch 

longitudinal marking and arrow/symbol pavement 

markings. 

Master Prompt

Sub-Prompt, or 

detailed prompt 

and description, 

presents more 

detailed potential 

concerns

Some detailed 

prompts include 

photos showing 

potential issues 

or strategies 

used to address 

issues.
37

Using the Bicycle RSA Prompt Lists

4.3 When to Use the Prompt Lists

The prompt lists should not only be used during a Bicycle RSA but during any RSA with a 

cycling component. The RSA team can use the prompt lists during:

■ Review of project information and design drawings.

■ Field reviews and site visits.

■ Review of RSA results and suggestion development.

■ Report writing.

All items on the master prompt list should be reviewed for all RSA stages. Projects in the planning or preliminary design stages are less detailed, typically resulting in an RSA that addresses 

only general issues (such as whether separated facilities can or should be provided). As the 

design progresses, more detail is available in the design drawings; therefore, the RSA should 

consider more detailed elements (such as actual bikeway width). For RSAs of existing facilities, 

the RSA team must consider these same detailed elements, as well as review the condition of 

existing infrastructure (such as the condition of the biking surface) and behavioral patterns 

(such as cyclists riding in the correct direction on bicycle lanes).

4.4 How to Use the Prompt Lists

The prompt lists are designed to assist RSA team members, with varying degrees of experience, 

in identifying cyclist safety issues. Inexperienced RSA team members may find the detailed 

prompt lists more helpful than RSA team members with more experience. The experienced 

team members may focus more on the master prompt list. However, before conducting an RSA, 

all members should familiarize themselves with the prompt lists.

As described, the RSA master prompt list consists of 12 major topic areas and 5 RSA zones, each 

with an associated prompt. The prompts and the key elements that must be considered when 

conducting an RSA are:

■ Topic 1—Presence and Availability: Are cyclists accommodated?

■ Topic 2—Design and Placement: Are design features present that adversely impact the use 

of the facility by cyclists?

■ Topic 3—Operations: Are there suitable provisions for cyclists given the characteristics of the 

roadway or path (speed, volume, traffic, and functional classification)? Do access management 

practices detract from cycling safety?

■ Topic 4—Quality and Conditions: Is the riding surface maintained free of debris and/or 

hazards? Is drainage adequate on the riding surface? Are drainage grates designed for cyclists?

■ Topic 5—Obstructions: Are there any horizontal or vertical obstructions (temporary or 

permanent) along the facility? 

■ Topic 6—Roadside: Is the clear zone for cyclist’s operating space adequate?

■ Topic 7—Continuity and Connectivity: Are accommodations for cyclists continuous? Do 

accommodations for cyclists provide adequate connectivity to major destinations?

■ Topic 8—Lighting: Is the riding surface adequately lit?
38

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

■ Topic 9—Visibility: Is visibility of the cyclists using the facility adequate from the perspective 

of all road users, and vice versa?

■ Topic 10—Signs and Pavement Markings: Are signs and markings along the riding surface 

visible, well-maintained, easily understood, and adequate? 

■ Topic 11—Signals: If bicycle detection is present, is it properly positioned, functioning, and 

effective? Does the traffic signal design accommodate all users?

■ Topic 12—Human Factors/Behavior: What are all roadway users (vehicles, bicyclists, 

pedestrians, transit, etc.) doing with regard to bicycle traffic, and what are cyclists doing with 

regard to all other roadway users? Do roadway user behaviors increase crash risk?

Topics 1 and 12 form the “bookends” of the prompt lists. They describe potential issues at 

their fundamental stage—infrastructure and behavior—and are described in detail in the 

following sections.

4.4.1 Presence and Availability

Cyclists should be provided a complete bicycle network that offers safe routes to destinations. 

However, not every roadway is designed to accommodate cyclists. Cyclists (and other nonmotorized traffic) are typically not permitted on freeways, although they may have a separated, 

parallel route. On the other hand, facilities for cyclists may be provided that are not appropriate 

for the land use, roadway classification, traffic speed, composition, or volume context. As a 

result, safety may be compromised for cyclists who choose to use the facility and deprive other 

cyclists of direct and efficient bicycle routes to destinations. While it is beyond the ability of the 

RSA team to investigate cyclist safety at the network level, the team should be able to assess the 

appropriateness and safety of facilities for cyclists on the roadway that is the subject of the RSA. 

In addition to subject roadways, the team may need to assess the appropriateness and safety 

of facilities for cyclists on nearby and parallel routes or transition areas between cycling facilities 

outside of the defined study area. 

Figure 17 indicates the suggested bicycle facility treatment for roadways as a function of 

the relationship between vehicle speed versus volume. As depicted in Figure 17, in general, 

separated facilities are appropriate for high-speed, high-volume roads (see darker area in 

diagram) while shared lanes are appropriate on low-speed, low-volume roads (see lighter area 

in diagram). Some roads may have characteristics that require a more detailed understanding 

of conditions to determine the appropriate accommodation for cyclists (see area in between). 

For example, on low-speed, high-volume roads bicycle lanes can encourage conflicts since 

cyclists may be traveling as fast or faster than motor vehicles placing cyclists into static or 

moving blind spots. 
39

Using the Bicycle RSA Prompt Lists

Figure 17. General Bicycle Facility Utilization Given the Context of Vehicular Traffic Volume 

and Speed.

27

4.4.2 Human Factors and Behavior

Human factors and behaviors are a contributing factor in most crashes involving motor vehicles. 

Crashes involving cyclists are no different. The RSA team should observe the behaviors exhibited by motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists and investigate the reasons those behaviors are 

practiced. The RSA team should use the prompts in Table 4 to investigate and assess whether 

cyclist, pedestrian, or driver behavior increases the risk of a collision. If undesirable behaviors 

are present, there may be a need for additional enforcement, training, and education, as well 

as improvements in infrastructure where roadway design, operations, or traffic factors may be 

contributing to these behaviors.

Observing the behavior of cyclists is essential to understanding the conditions that affect the safety of cyclists. Some cyclists may feel more comfortable riding 

on the sidewalk due to roadway conditions.
40

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

Table 4: Prompts to Use when Assessing Cyclist and Other Road User Behavior.

Do roadway users look/scan for other travel modes?

Are roadway/path 

users courteous to 

each other?

Do motorists:

• Allow extra space or reduce speed as needed when overtaking or driving near bicyclists? 

• Look for and yield to bicyclists before changing lanes, turning, parking or opening 

car doors?

• Avoid loud horn blasts when overtaking or driving near bicyclists?

• Watch for cyclists needing to merge and allow space for them to do so?

• Refrain from speeding?

Do cyclists:

• Give an alert call or signal (such as using a bell) when passing pedestrians or other 

bicyclists on shared use facilities? 

• Ride at a safe speed and follow safe practices for the conditions?

• Slow down for pedestrians and wait for a safe passing opportunity? 

• Stop at intersections when required to do so?

Do pedestrians: 

• Stay to the right? 

• Avoid abrupt changes in direction? 

• Avoid stepping out in front of cyclists without looking? 

• Keep dogs on leashes and out of the way of other path users?

Do all modes 

• Use special lanes (e.g., bus/bicycle-only lanes, drop-off zones, etc.) appropriately 

and safely? 

Do motorists follow 

traffic laws and 

rules of the road?

Do motorists:

• Obey posted speed limits and local ordinances?

• Avoid unsafe overtaking or passing cyclists too closely? 

• Check for and yield to through cyclists before turning right, either from a stopped 

position or after overtaking a bicyclist traveling to the right? 

• Avoid passing left-turning cyclists on the left?

• Use proper signals to indicate intentions?

• Obey traffic controls including signs, signals, and pavement markings?

• Look in both directions and yield to bicyclists and other traffic when turning and entering 

and exiting the roadway? 

• Avoid parking in bicycle lanes or double-parking?

• Yield to opposing bicycle traffic when turning left under a green signal?
41

Using the Bicycle RSA Prompt Lists

Do roadway users look/scan for other travel modes?

Do bicyclists 

observe the rules 

of the road and 

other safe riding 

practices?

Do bicyclists: 

• Travel with the flow of traffic?

• Position themselves properly in the lane/path? Consider the conditions present, such as 

narrow lane widths, on-street parking, turning conflicts, poor sight lines, and pavement 

conditions? 

• Make left turns from the appropriate lane?

• Check for approaching traffic, including pedestrians on walkways, and yield before 

entering/crossing a roadway at any type of junction (intersection, driveway, or shared 

use path)? 

• Understand and obey the posted traffic control devices and local ordinances? 

• Check behind for traffic before changing lanes or merging with traffic on a different 

traveled way? 

• Use proper hand signals to indicate turning or stopping intentions? 

• If bicycle restrictions are present, do cyclists adhere to those restrictions and only use 

permitted areas or facilities? 

• Avoid passing traffic on the right and occupying blind spots where they may face 

conflicts with right-turning motorists?

• Transport children using proper child seats and helmets? 

Do bicyclists ride on 

the sidewalk?

• Does sidewalk riding contribute to conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections and 

driveways? 

• Do cyclists dismount and avoid cycling on sidewalks in high-pedestrian traffic areas?

• Does sidewalk riding contribute to conflicts with pedestrians? 

Are bicyclists 

practicing methods 

to increase their 

conspicuity at 

night?

• Are bicycles and bicyclists properly equipped with active, white headlamps and rear, red 

taillights? 

• Do bicyclists supplement required lighting and reflectors with retroreflective gear and 

clothing at night? 

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

43

Master Prompt List
44

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

RSA Zones

A. Street or Path B. Structures

C. Intersections, 

Crossings, and 

Interchanges

D. Transitions E. Transit

1. Presence & Availability

Are cyclists accommodated?

2. Design & Placement

Are design features 

present that 

adversely impact 

the use of the 

facility by cyclists?

Are bridges/

tunnels 

designed with 

adequate bicycle 

accommodations 

on both sides?

Does the gradient 

of the cycling 

accommodations 

impact the use of 

the facility?

Are intersection/

interchange 

accommodations 

designed to 

reduce conflicting 

movements and 

communicate 

proper bicycle 

positioning 

through the 

crossing?

Are transition areas 

designed with logical 

termini or do they end 

abruptly, potentially 

contributing to 

sudden and difficult 

merges, midblock 

crossings, or behaviors 

such as wrongway riding?

Are transit 

facilities designed 

and placed 

to minimize 

conflicts with 

other modes?

3. Operations

Are there suitable provisions for cyclists 

given the characteristics of the roadway or 

path (speed, volume, traffic, and functional 

classification)?

Do access management practices detract 

from cycling safety?

Do traffic 

operations 

(especially during 

peak periods) 

create a safety 

concern for 

cyclists? 

Do shared roadway 

geometrics change 

substantially or 

frequently?

Are transit 

facilities designed 

and placed 

to minimize 

conflicts with 

other modes?

4. Quality & Conditions

Is the riding surface 

smooth, stable, 

and free of debris 

and is drainage 

adequate?

Are drainage 

grates designed for 

cyclists?

Is the grating/

bridge surface 

designed for 

cyclists?

Is drainage 

adequate to 

accommodate 

bicyclists?

Are there 

longitudinal or 

transverse joints 

that may cause 

cyclists problems?

Are there any 

obstacles at 

crossings?

Are the manhole 

covers properly 

designed?

Is there an 

abrupt change in 

riding surface?

Are transit stops 

maintained 

during periods 

of inclement 

weather? 

5. Obstructions

Are there any 

horizontal 

or vertical 

obstructions 

(temporary or 

permanent) along 

the facility? 

Is there adequate 

horizontal and 

vertical clearance?

If bollards or other physical terminal devices 

are used, is the risk of occasional motorized 

vehicles greater than the risk of a fixed object 

within the travel way?

Is the waiting 

area free of 

temporary/

permanent 

obstructions 

that constrict its 

width or block 

access to the 

bus stop? 
45

Master Prompt List

RSA Zones

A. Street or Path B. Structures

C. Intersections, 

Crossings, and 

Interchanges

D. Transitions E. Transit

6. Roadside

Is the clear zone for 

cyclists’ operating 

space adequate? 

Are railings, 

guardrail, and/or 

parapets and other 

structures installed 

at an appropriate 

height and shy 

distance?

If bollards or other physical terminal devices 

are used, is the risk of occasional motorized 

vehicles greater than the risk of a fixed object 

within the travel way?

Are bicycle 

accommodations 

connected and 

convenient for 

transit users?

7. Continuity & Connectivity

Are bicycle 

accommodations 

continuous?

Do bicycle 

accommodations 

provide adequate 

connectivity to 

major destinations?

Are bicycle 

accommodations 

continuous, or do 

they end abruptly 

at bridge/tunnel 

crossings?

Are bicycle 

accommodations 

continuous, or do 

they end abruptly 

at crossings/

intersections/

interchanges?

Is there a safe way 

for cyclists from 

both directions to 

access connections 

or continue to other 

destinations along the 

street network?

Are crossings 

convenient and 

free of potential 

hazards for 

cyclists?

8. Lighting

Is the riding surface 

adequately lit?

Are bridges 

and tunnels 

adequately lit?

Are the intersection/transition and paths 

leading to the transition adequately lit? 

Are transit 

access ways 

and facilities 

adequately lit?

9. Visibility

Is the visibility 

of cyclists using 

the facility 

adequate from the 

perspective of all 

road users? 

Can cyclists see 

approaching 

vehicles/

pedestrians, and 

vice versa?

Can cyclists see 

approaching 

vehicles/

pedestrians at 

all legs of an 

intersection/

crossing, and 

vice versa?

Is the visibility of 

cyclists as they 

make the transition 

from one facility or 

roadway geometry 

to another adequate 

from the perspective 

of all road users?

Is the visibility of 

cyclists using the 

facility adequate 

from the 

perspective of all 

road users?

10. Signs & Pavement Markings

Are signs and 

markings along 

the riding surface 

visible, wellmaintained, easily 

understood, and 

adequate?

Are adequate 

warning signs 

posted at 

entrances?

Do signs and 

markings along 

the cycling facility 

clearly indicate the 

cyclist path and 

right-of-way at 

intersections?

Are signs and 

markings at transition 

areas appropriate?

Are signs and 

markings at 

designated 

areas for cyclists 

using transit 

appropriate?

11. Signals

If bicycle traffic signalization and detection are present, are they properly positioned, functioning, and effective?

Does the traffic signal design accommodate all users?

12. Human Factors / Behavior

What are all roadway users (vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, etc.) doing with regards to bicycle traffic, and 

vice versa? 

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

47

Prompt List

A. Street or Path

A.2: Are design features present that adversely impact the use of the facility by cyclists?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.2.1: Do accommodations for cyclists 

conform to the state of practice, 

guidelines, and relevant standards, or 

are there more advanced designs that 

would better support and enhance 

conditions for cycling?

While an RSA is not a standards check, it is critical that some RSA 

team members have an understanding of design requirements for 

cycling facilities as well as an understanding of the relative safety 

benefits that various design features may provide.

Guidance documents include, but are not limited to:

• AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets

(“Green Book”).

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Successful practices may be found in:

• AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

• FHWA’s Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Parts 1 and 2.28 29

• NACTO Urban Bikeways Design Guide.

Knowledge of the information contained in these resources will 

help RSA team members check for conditions that may present 

a safety issue for cyclists, especially under challenging conditions 

(e.g., night, adverse weather, high vehicle speeds, multiple conflicts, 

etc.). Chapter 1 provides a more complete list of resources.
48

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

A.2: Are design features present that adversely impact the use of the facility by cyclists?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.2.2: Are there adequate cycling 

provisions on both sides / directions of 

the roadway?

On-road accommodations: accommodations for cyclists are 

needed on both sides of a two-way roadway and certain one-way 

roadway pairs of streets to accommodate desire lines of cyclists. 

Aside from issues of continuity and connectivity (see A.7), conflicts 

arise when two-way accommodations for cyclists are not present 

(see photo, left). 

The roadway in the photo has a shoulder on one side of the road 

only, which raises several potential issues associated with this 

cross-section:

• Cyclists are encouraged to ride against traffic.

• Cyclists and pedestrians traveling opposite directions are subject 

to conflicts on the shoulder.

• Some cyclists approach intersections and driveways from the 

right, creating an expectancy conflict with motor vehicle traffic.

• Connectivity to destinations on the opposite side of the road is 

not provided, potentially resulting in unpredictable maneuvers by 

cyclists. A.2.9 shows two-directional travel for bicycles maintained 

with a counterflow bicycle lane.

Off-road accommodations: facilities should allow for two-way travel 

that considers conflicts with other road users and desire lines of 

cyclists. Separated bicycle facilities may take the form of two, oneway paths or two-way paths. Priority should be carefully considered 

at side street crossings, especially for two-way paths. Continuity 

and connectivity (see A.7) with other types of facilities are also 

potential safety concerns. 

A.2.3: Does the design consider 

prevailing speeds of cyclists and 

comfort?

On-road accommodations: steep downgrades and lack of 

superelevation may contribute to loss of control issues for even the 

most experienced bicyclists. This may be a particular issue on rural 

roads where cyclists may be accommodated by a shoulder.

Off-road accommodations: consideration should be given to the 

adequacy of horizontal curves, hill crests, and sag curves, especially 

curve and grade combinations that make the path difficult or 

uncomfortable to ride (i.e., a sharp horizontal curve at the bottom 

of a steep downgrade).

A.2.4: Would bicycle lanes or separated 

facilities improve conditions for cyclists 

and if so, is there adequate separation 

between vehicular and bicycle traffic?

On-road accommodations: as shown in Figure 17, shared lanes are 

typically appropriate on low-speed, low-volume roads. Bike lanes 

or separated facilities may be more appropriate on high-speed, 

high-volume roads. Adequacy of the separation distance of these 

facilities is a function of vehicle speed, volume, and composition. 

Beyond meeting minimum standards, the width of on-road 

facilities should consider the wind impacts from passing heavy 

vehicles. 

The high-speed roadway in the photo to the left has a wide bicycle 

lane designated by an 8-inch longitudinal marking and arrow/

symbol pavement markings. 
49

Prompt List: A. Street or Path

A.2: Are design features present that adversely impact the use of the facility by cyclists?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.2.5: Is there adequate space and 

accommodation for bicycles?

On-road accommodations: bicycle accommodations should 

consider the full operating width of cyclists, not just the physical 

width. The operating width for cyclists may increase because of 

speed, wind, bicyclist’s handling skills or shy distance from curbs, 

gutter pans, drop-offs, guard rails, railing, car door swing, and other 

features. 

The top photo to the left illustrates a bicycle lane with a striped 

buffer area between the bicycle lane and moving traffic (note that 

combined use of solid and dashed lines for a bicycle lane does not 

conform to the MUTCD). This bicycle lane is located on the left side 

of a one-way street to minimize door conflicts with parked vehicles 

and to avoid conflicts with buses. 

Off-road accommodations: the full operating width of cyclists 

should be considered with regard to interactions with pedestrians 

and other path users. Operating space should be consistent and 

free of choke points or obstacles that limit space (see also B.6). 

The photo on the bottom left shows a shared use path that 

narrows at a transition to a bridge, creating a choke point. This 

design may increase conflicts between path users. The type of 

users should also be considered (i.e., less experienced cyclists may 

need additional width for passing and other maneuvers than more 

experienced cyclists and areas with a high bicycle trailer usage may 

increase the need for additional width).

Figures 3 and 4 describe operating space and the lengths and 

widths of bicycles. 

A.2.6: Could the gradient impact cyclists? Cyclists on ascent up a steep grade may need additional operating 

width because of the greater speed differential from motor vehicle 

speed and because bicycles are less stable at low speeds. Cyclists 

on steep descents need greater stopping sight distances and 

separation from other users due to higher speeds. 

The photo to the left shows a shared use path with a wide climbing 

lane to allow cyclists to pass slower cyclists, but does not provide 

additional space for cyclists on the downgrade. This is particularly 

critical given that there is a horizontal curve at the bottom of 

the hill.

Since cyclists can travel at high speeds on steep descents, curves 

and structures at the bottom of hills should accommodate higher 

design speeds. Pavement conditions (e.g., debris) or conflicts at the 

bottom of gradients can increase risk.

Narrowing of path
50

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

A.2: Are design features present that adversely impact the use of the facility by cyclists?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.2.7: Do traffic calming measures and 

traffic management practices allow for 

safe and efficient cycling operation?

Typically, traffic calming measures (e.g., chicanes, curb extensions, 

and road diets) are utilized to encourage slower motorized vehicle 

speeds and create a more uniform speed profile. Cyclists can 

benefit from this reduction in vehicle speeds if the space for riding 

is adequately maintained by these measures. 

Traffic management refers to measures that divert motorized traffic 

to other adjacent facilities (e.g., bicycle boulevard, partial diverters, 

etc.). These devices should enhance cycling safety by providing 

well-defined riding areas and path connections.

A.2.8: Do rumble strips present a 

detrimental surface condition to 

bicycles?

The application of rumble strips should consider the following (see 

also FHWA rumble strip advisories T 5040.39 Shoulder and Edge Line 

Rumble Strips and T 5040.40 Center Line Rumble Strips): 

• Is the usable width of the shoulder reduced?

• Are regularly-spaced breaks in the rumble strips provided for a 

cyclist to traverse rumble strips?

• Are longer gaps provided on downgrades?

• Do rumble strips stop in advance of intersections and crossovers 

to allow lane changes in advance of turns?

• If centerline rumble strips are present, is the riding surface wide 

enough to allow vehicles to pass cyclists with adequate clearance 

and without crossing the centerline?
51

Prompt List: A. Street or Path

A.2: Are design features present that adversely impact the use of the facility by cyclists?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.2.9: Does parking adversely affect 

cycling safety?

All parking affects a cyclist’s position or maneuvers. On-street 

parking typically encourages slower vehicle speeds; however, the 

effects of on-street parking on the safety of cyclists should be 

understood. Consideration should be given to the following: 

• On-street parking may effect a cyclist’s position on the road as 

cyclists attempt to avoid “dooring.”

• Pull-in/angle parking may lead to conflicts with cyclists when 

vehicles back up because awareness and visibility of approaching 

cyclists on the roadway may be restricted or obstructed by other 

parked vehicles. 

• Back-in/head-out angle parking provides improved visibility of 

approaching cyclists on the roadway, as a driver has much better 

visibility when exiting.

• Encroachments, double parking, and illegal parking can 

contribute to cyclist conflicts with other users. 

The photo to the left shows a counterflow bicycle lane through 

a neighborhood. The counterflow lane is within the door zone 

of parked vehicles. Consideration should be given to the ability 

of cyclists riding in bicycle lanes (with traffic and counterflow to 

traffic) to keep out of the door zone of parked vehicles without 

deviating from the lane. Also note that the counterflow bicycle lane 

and the vehicle travel lane provide two-direction access to cyclists 

(see A.2.2).

A.3: Are there suitable provisions for cyclists given the characteristics of the roadway or path (speed, volume, 

traffic, and functional classification)? Do access management practices consider cycling safety?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.3.1: Is the type of cycling 

accommodation appropriate for the 

roadway context?

Consideration should be given to the roadway functional 

classification, vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, vehicle classification, 

use and/or designation of the bicycle route, and access to cyclist 

destinations to determine if the type of accommodation is 

appropriate. A cyclist should have adequate space to operate based 

upon the prevailing conditions (see Figure 17).

A.3.2: Is the type of cycling 

accommodation appropriate for the 

primary or intended users?

Bicycle accommodations should match the needs of the intended 

users. Cyclists, particularly less-experienced cyclists, may prefer 

greater separation from vehicular traffic, especially as speeds and 

volumes increase. Particular attention should be given to routes 

that access schools, parks, and other public spaces that will be 

frequented by children and families. 
52

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

A.3: Are there suitable provisions for cyclists given the characteristics of the roadway or path (speed, volume, 

traffic, and functional classification)? Do access management practices consider cycling safety?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.3.3: Are driveways designed with 

cyclists in mind?

Driveways and entrances should be well-defined and clear of 

obstructions so that driver and cyclist actions are consistent and 

predictable. Multiple driveway access points increase the number 

of conflict points for cyclists (see C.2.2 and C.2.3). Poor access 

management may encourage cyclists to use sidewalks instead 

of on-road facilities or take alternative routes that may also have 

safety issues.

A.4: Is the riding surface smooth, stable, and free of debris, and is drainage adequate? Are drainage grates or 

manholes located in the cyclists’ path of travel?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.4.1: Are cross-slopes adequate for 

prevailing speeds by cyclists?

Cross-slopes can cause a cyclist to tip or veer off course. Acceptable 

cross-slopes are typically important in areas where one surface 

transitions to another and at the edge of the road where the 

surface can pitch unexpectedly. A one percent cross-slope is 

recommended, although cross-slopes should not exceed five 

percent.12

A.4.2: Does debris accumulate in the area 

used (or intended for use) by cyclists?

Dirt, litter, glass, etc. may accumulate where cyclists travel. This 

debris may puncture tires or cause a loss of control, especially on 

a downgrade or curve. Consideration should also be given to the 

material adjacent to a facility used by cyclists, as these should be 

free of lose materials that can move onto a path. 

The photo to the left shows a gravel driveway that has partially 

covered the bikeable shoulder. Loose gravel can cause a cyclist to 

lose stability and fall. Surface conditions that may present existing 

or future issues to cyclists should be considered.

A.4.3: Is vegetation narrowing the 

rideable width or affecting the 

surface quality?

Grass and fast-growing vegetation may narrow the travel way and 

interfere with cyclists, causing them to make avoidance maneuvers 

that may put them into conflict with other roadway or path users.

Off-road accommodations: Tree roots and other heavy growth may 

damage the riding surface, which can lead to a loss of control.
53

Prompt List: A. Street or Path

A.4: Is the riding surface smooth, stable, and free of debris, and is drainage adequate? Are drainage grates or 

manholes located in the cyclists’ path of travel?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.4.4: Are there potholes or other 

surface defects?

Facilities used by cyclists should be smoother than those deemed 

acceptable for motorized traffic. Potholes, cracks (especially 

longitudinal cracks), buckling from heavy vehicle use, and lips at 

surface transitions along the riding surface are surface defects that 

may cause cyclists to lose control or fall. A continuous presence 

of these surface defects may cause cyclists to ride outside of the 

intended path of travel.

The photo to the left shows a Shared Lane Marking (SLM) with a 

roughly patched pothole just beyond it. Cyclists may divert from 

the marked path to avoid surface irregularities such as these.

A.4.5: Are drainage grates or manholes 

located in the cyclists’ path of travel?

Recessed manholes, drainage grates, or utility covers may increase 

the potential for tire and wheel damage. Consideration should be 

given to the use of drainage grates that are “bicycle compatible” 

with transverse openings of an acceptable gap. 

The grate pictured at the left has both longitudinal openings and 

is damaged, both of which could present a significant issue to a 

cyclist (see B.4.1).

A.4.6: Are there longitudinal joints or 

cracks that could trap a wheel?

Longitudinal Joint

Deep longitudinal joints or cracks may “grab” a tire and potentially 

cause loss of control (see also B.4.3). 

The photo to the left shows a longitudinal joint at the cold joint 

between pavement surfaces that may cause a cyclist to lose control 

and fall.
54

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

A.4: Is the riding surface smooth, stable, and free of debris, and is drainage adequate? Are drainage grates or 

manholes located in the cyclists’ path of travel?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.4.7: Does ponding of water occur in the 

cyclists’ path of travel?

Standing water can cause cyclists to make sudden changes in their 

path of travel and may conceal potholes or other defects. Debris 

may also collect in areas where there is poor drainage and cause 

cyclists to slip (see also B.4.2). 

The photo to the left shows debris across the cycling facility that 

has been carried by storm water and deposited at the location due 

to poor drainage.

A.5: Are there horizontal or vertical obstructions (temporary or permanent) along the facility?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.5.1: Are sign faces, including temporary 

construction or detour signs, mounted 

away from the operating space?

Specifically, post-mounted signs shall be mounted at least 4 feet 

above and 2 feet beyond the edge of the bicycle facility (i.e., such 

that no portion of the sign or its support is within 2 feet of the 

edge of the bicycle facility). If the sign is overhead, the sign shall be 

mounted at least 8 feet above the facility, and there shall be at least 

2 feet of horizontal clearance between the pole and the edge of 

the bicycle facility. 

The stop sign shown in the photo to the left is not installed at the 

appropriate offset or height from the pavement edge, increasing 

the potential of a sign strike. Visibility of the sign is also obstructed 

by the fence and box. Placement of the fence adjacent to the path 

also restricts usable space (see A.2.5, A.6.1, and, for at-grade railroad 

crossings, C.2.6).

A.5.2: Do vegetation or other 

obstructions encroach into the cycling 

operating space?

Fast-growing vegetation, tree branches, bushes, or root damage to 

pavement may interfere with cyclists’ operating space and cause 

riding into the vehicle travel lane, opposing pathway, or designated 

space for other users. 
55

Prompt List: A. Street or Path

A.6: Is the clear zone for cyclists’ operating space adequate?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.6.1: Are clear zones along 

paths adequate?

Clear zones should be maintained to provide an adequate level 

recovery area and unobstructed sight distance for prevalent 

bicycle speeds. The clear zone should be free of signs, fences, 

non-traversable landscaping, and loose materials that act as fixed 

objects or that can destabilize a cyclist. Clear zone guidance is 

provided by AASHTO (see also A.5.1). 

A.6.2: Do slopes in the clear zone pose a 

safety issue?

Graded shoulders provide a recovery area for cyclists. Steep 

slopes and drop-offs should be outside the clear zone. Clear zone 

guidance related to slopes is provided by AASHTO. 

The photo to the left shows a shared use path with an unprotected, 

sharp drop-off that is non-traversable by cyclists. 

A.7: Are bicycle accommodations continuous? Do bicycle accommodations provide adequate connectivity to 

major destinations?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.7.1: Are cycling routes or facilities 

continuous?

A network of bicycle-friendly roadways and paths is critical to 

provide cyclists with continuous and direct access to destinations. 

Gaps, lack of facilities, or facilities inappropriate for the context 

may result in indirect routes to destinations and possibly illegal or 

undesirable behaviors, such as riding against traffic and riding on 

sidewalks to reach destinations (see D.2).

A.7.2: Are there frequent changes in the 

geometrics or accommodations provided 

for cyclists?

Frequent or sudden changes in geometrics or accommodations 

can cause conflicts with other users, particularly in high volume, 

high-speed corridors (see D.2). Examples include drops of shoulders 

or bicycle lanes and reductions in path widths. Unexpected 

changes when traveling at higher operating speeds may lead to 

severe crashes. 

A.7.3: Is access provided to primary 

destinations?

Consideration should be given to primary destinations for 

cyclists (e.g., work, school, church, parks, restaurants, etc.). Lack 

of appropriate access and accommodations for cyclists affects 

their safety within the roadway or pathway environment and may 

contribute to fewer riders due to safety concerns.
56

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

A.8: Is the riding surface adequately lit?

Inconsistent or dim lighting may create shadows, affecting the ability of cyclists to see and be seen. High-risk 

corridors may need additional lighting, particularly if surrounding land uses are active (e.g., college campus areas). 

Routes may need to be evaluated seasonally for commuter use in early evening hours and during seasons with 

heavy foliage or snow.

A.9: Is the visibility of cyclists using the facility adequate from the perspective of all road users? 

Sub-Prompt Description

A.9.1: Is sight distance an issue? Limited sight distance due to horizontal and vertical alignment, 

roadside objects, or surrounding infrastructure may pose safety 

issues, especially on horizontal curves. Cyclists may not see a 

potential conflict with other users, and vice versa. Consider the 

following features that may limit sight distance:

• Trees, shrubs, and landscaping.

• Sharp horizontal curves.

• Crests on steep hills.

• Fences and walls.

• Structures and buildings.

Also, note that increasing sight distance may result in increased 

travel speeds. 

The photo to the left shows where horizontal curvature and a 

limited clear zone result in limited sight distance (see also Figure 14. 

Techniques to Minimize Sight Distance Issues for Cyclists). 

A.9.2: Are cyclists riding at the edge of 

the road or path obscured by vegetation 

along the roadway edge?

Facilities may be designed in such a way that cyclists ride close 

to the roadway or path edge. Vegetation and other features may 

reduce the usable width of the facility. 

Additionally, vegetation and other roadside features may create 

conditions where cyclists:

• Blend into the surroundings (see also A.8).

• Make unpredictable maneuvers to avoid vegetation.

The photo to the left shows heavy vegetation growing close to the 

path. Cyclists may shy away from this vegetation, which can create 

conflicts with path users in both directions. This is especially critical 

given the narrow width of the facility and limited visibility.
57

Prompt List: A. Street or Path

A.10: Are signs and markings along the riding surface visible, well-maintained, easily understood, and adequate?

Sub-Prompt Description

A.10.1: Are signage and pavement 

markings clear and consistent along the 

path or roadway?

Specific considerations include:

• Regulatory and Warning—Regulatory and warning signs should 

only be used when needed. Traffic control devices specific to 

bicycle travel should provide clear and consistent messages so 

that required actions of all road users are communicated 

effectively and understood.

• Wayfinding—When cyclists are fearful of motor traffic, they are 

more likely to behave in a less safe manner (e.g., riding on the 

sidewalk, hugging the edge of the road, etc.). Wayfinding can be 

used to help less confident cyclists avoid busier roads that they 

might find intimidating. Bicycle route maps may also be used to 

communicate route information to cyclists.

• On designated cycling routes, directional, destination, and 

wayfinding signage and pavement markings should be 

consistent, well-maintained, and should be readable and visible in 

all conditions, including at night. Signs that require stopping for 

reading should not be placed at intersections in or near traffic but 

rather in other locations where cyclists might stop, such as at 

tables, water fountains, etc. 

• Trail Etiquette—Signs indicating trail etiquette may be used to 

communicate trail information to the cyclist. The signs should be 

concise and readable at bicycle travel speeds. The example in the 

photo to the left is confusing and is not readable at bicycle travel 

speeds. Furthermore, the no parking sign discourages cyclists 

from stopping.

A.10.2: Is the spacing and location of 

signage and pavement markings 

adequate to communicate the intended 

use?

Too many signs in one location can lead to “information overload,” 

which can confuse or distract cyclists and other road users. Also, 

signs intended for cyclists may be misinterpreted for use by other 

road users. 

The intersection signage shown in the photo to the left presents 

road users with multiple messages, which may be confusing or 

distracting.

A.11: Refer to B.11 and C.11 for traffic signal and detection position, function, and effectiveness considerations.
58

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

B. Structures

B.2: Are bridges/tunnels designed with adequate bicycle accommodations on both sides? Does the gradient of 

the cycling accommodations impact the use of the facility?

Sub-Prompt Description

B.2.1: Are two-way bicycle 

accommodations provided?

On-road accommodations: bridges and other structures, such as 

tunnels or culverts, may constrict or terminate designated space 

for cyclists placing them into conflict with motorists. This may 

lead to unpredictable maneuvers by cyclists. If accommodations 

are provided only on one side, is there a means of safe access and 

departure by bicyclists traveling in the other direction (see also B.5)?

Off-road accommodations: separated bicycle facilities may provide 

two-way travel for cyclists on one side of a structure; however, the 

continuity of the path should be maintained and conflicts avoided, 

such as having a two-way bikeway that is not separated from traffic, 

as well as other conditions described in B.5 (see also A.7).

The photo to the left shows a bridge that has been retrofitted 

with exclusive pedestrian and bicycle paths that provides good 

separation from vehicular traffic. 

B.2.2: Does the gradient of the cycling 

accommodations impact the use of 

the facility?

Grade and the inability to escape due to the presence of walls, 

railings, and other barriers impact safety on bridges and in tunnels. 

Specific considerations may include:

• Is there space for vehicles to pass slow bikes on uphill segments?

• Is there separation between high-speed cyclists riding with or 

faster than vehicle traffic on downhill segments?

B.3: See prompts in A.3 for potential operational considerations affecting the safety of cyclists.
59

Prompt List: B. Structures

B.4: Does the grating/bridge surface pose a hazard to bicyclists? Is drainage adequate to accommodate bicyclists? Are there longitudinal or transverse joints that may cause cyclists problems? 

Sub-Prompt Description

B.4.1: Is the riding surface smooth, and 

does it provide adequate skid resistance?

All surfaces must be designed with cyclists in mind. The following 

conditions that affect safety should be considered:

• Can grates trap or channelize the front tire of bicycles (see also 

A.4.5 and A.4.6)?

• Is timber decking placed longitudinally so as to trap a tire?

• Are transitions in surface smooth and free from gaps? Note the 

jagged edge of the plate in the photo to the left resulting from 

snow plowing. 

• Is skid resistance (i.e., traction) adequate under all weather 

conditions or are more advanced treatments required? Note also 

that metal plates can be slippery when damp or wet, especially 

near waterways. Additionally, movable spans like a drawbridge 

can bounce significantly under traffic loads, contributing to loss of 

control for cyclists on the bridge when traction is inadequate.

B.4.2: Is drainage adequate, and is the 

surface free of debris?

Ponding and draining water may pose the following safety issues to 

cyclists:

• Slippery surfaces.

• Masked surface defects (e.g., potholes, cracks, lips, etc.).

• Sediment, which can create a slippery surface.

The presence of ponding and draining water may cause cyclists to 

perform avoidance maneuvers that may conflict with other road 

users or place the cyclist in an unexpected predicament. Evidence 

of drainage issues, particularly puddles or sediment from standing 

or flowing water should be reviewed (see also A.4.7).

The picture to the left shows sand and road debris cast onto the 

cycling path from sanding and plowing operations. Sand on the 

pavement can cause a loss of traction for cyclists.
60

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

B.4: Does the grating/bridge surface pose a hazard to bicyclists? Is drainage adequate to accommodate bicyclists? Are there longitudinal or transverse joints that may cause cyclists problems? 

Sub-Prompt Description

B.4.3: Are there longitudinal or 

transverse joints that may cause 

cyclists problems?

Bicycle Compatible Bridge Expansion Joint

Longitudinal joints (i.e., parallel to the direction of travel) may trap a 

front bicycle tire and result in loss of control. 

Transverse joints (i.e., perpendicular to the direction of travel) may 

have wide gaps that can trap bicycle wheels, causing loss of control 

and sudden falls.

Bridge expansion joints, including finger joints like the one pictured 

to the bottom right, can have wide gaps that snag a tire or cause 

pinch flats (tire punctures) and cause a fall.

Non-Bicycle Compatible Bridge Expansion Joint

B.5: Is there adequate horizontal and vertical clearance?

In areas of low vertical clearance, items protruding into the clear zone (e.g., signs, light fixtures, structural supports, 

etc.) may not be noticed by a cyclist as they tend to focus on the travel surface. Furthermore, cyclists may change 

their position on the road or path to maintain comfortable operating space from bridge railings or tunnel walls. On 

roadways, large vehicles may also need to reposition themselves upon entering a tunnel due to vertical clearance, 

which can cause shifts in traffic in both directions that can affect cyclists.

Considerations with respect to horizontal clearance are discussed in A.2.5.

B.6: Are railings, guardrail, and/or parapets and other structures installed at an appropriate height and shy distance? Are there features that can pose a risk to cyclists?

Recommended height and shy distance for railings are detailed in 

the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, but many 

variations may occur, especially at locations where ornamental 

railings may be used. Further consideration should be given to 

vertical protrusions or bars that can catch or snag a passing cyclist 

or bicycle and whether the railing presents a greater safety issue 

than the hazard it is shielding. Blunt ends of railings and other 

barriers may increase risk to all road users. 

The photo to the left shows a barrier that has guardrail on the side 

facing the path to prevent snagging. However, guardrail has a sharp 

edge that may pose an injury risk in the event of a fall.

Expansion Joint
61

Prompt List: B. Structures

B.7: Are bicycle accommodations continuous, or do they end abruptly at bridge/tunnel crossings?

Inconsistencies in cycling accommodations may be introduced at bridges and tunnels. Conditions that may increase 

risk for cyclists include:

• Change in accommodation location both at the structure and on the structure.

• Changes in useable width (see also D.3, D.7, and D.9).

B.8: Are bridges and tunnels adequately lit?

Lighting should adequately address the following:

• Cyclists can see the surface and determine useable space.

• All roadway users are aware of the presence of others.

• Transitions from daylight to tunnel or bridge, and vice versa, 

minimize changes in light so that cyclists and other users do not 

lose visual acuity (see also A.9).

Transitions may be especially critical at an interchange, where 

lighting conditions may change rapidly due to the presence of an 

underpass or overpass and complex traffic patterns may be present 

(see also C.9). 

In the photograph to the left, cyclists can see daylight at the 

tunnel end and determine if there are others in the tunnel. Also, 

for security reasons, cyclists prefer to be able to see daylight at the 

tunnel end.

B.9: Can cyclists see approaching vehicles/pedestrians, and vice versa?

Sight distance is often restricted by numerous features at or near bridges and tunnels to include:

• Railings.

• Abutments and retaining walls.

• Piers.

Sight distance with respect to the following conditions should be considered (see A.9):

• User habits, such as cyclists riding side-by-side on off-road paths.

• Operating speeds of all users. 

User awareness should also be considered as described in Chapter 3, Figure 14.

B.10: Are adequate warning signs posted at entrances?

Motorists and cyclists should be aware of each other. Warnings should be clearly visible for all lighting conditions 

and clearly understood, especially in areas where the useable space may be restricted (see also A.5.1).

Road
62

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

B.11: If bicycle traffic signalization and detection are present, are they properly positioned, functioning, 

and effective?

Transitions to and from bridges and tunnels may be controlled by 

traffic signals and other warning systems that are bicycle-activated. 

When used, these devices should consider the following: 

• Is detection positioned where it can be easily “triggered” by 

cyclists without having to change their intended route?

• Are traffic signals and detection functioning properly?

• Are traffic signals understood by all road users and obeyed?

• Transitioning to and from bridges and tunnels may involve 

waiting through long traffic signal cycles. Is there sufficient 

storage space for cyclists that queue during these transitions? 

The photo to the left shows a bicycle warning system that is used 

to alert motorists of the presence of cyclists on a bridge because 

the bikeable shoulders do not continue over the bridge (see 

also C.11).
63

Prompt List: C. Intersections, Crossings, and Interchanges

C. Intersections, Crossings, and Interchanges

C.2: Are intersection/interchange accommodations designed to reduce conflicting movements and communicate proper bicycle positioning through the crossing?

Sub-Prompt Description

C.2.1: Are accommodations properly 

designed and placed on intersection 

approaches?

On-road accommodations: on-road bicycle lanes must be properly 

designed and located to encourage proper lane positioning at 

intersections (i.e., the rightmost lane or portion of lane headed in 

the cyclist’s direction of travel). Other considerations when locating 

a bicycle lane in relation to a turn lane include geometrics, traffic 

speed, and roadway gradient.

The top photo to the left shows a bicycle lane incorrectly located 

to the right of a dedicated turn lane, which may contribute to 

“right-hook” crashes. Bike lanes should be placed to the left of a 

right-turn lane to minimize the opportunity for right hook crashes 

and permit cyclists to ride through the intersection, as shown in the 

center photo.

The bottom photo to the left shows shared lane markings in the 

through and the far right right-turn only lane at an intersection on a 

multilane one way street. 

On-road/off-road accommodations: at shared use path/road 

intersections, the following should be considered:

• Is the major movement assigned right-of-way?

• Are curb ramps present, and if so, do they extend the full width of 

the path, with adequate landing area, slope, and a flush surface?

• Do crossings provide adequate gaps and storage for crossing 

cyclists, particularly at higher-speed multilane crossings (see 

also C.2.7)?
64

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

C.2: Are intersection/interchange accommodations designed to reduce conflicting movements and communicate proper bicycle positioning through the crossing?

Sub-Prompt Description

C.2.2: Are there difficulties for cyclists 

caused by intersection geometry or lane 

use assignments?

When peak traffic volumes and high speeds are present, 

intersection design features can make it difficult for cyclists to cross. 

The following conditions may be a safety concern for cyclists: 

• Free flow/continuous right-turn lanes.

• Acceleration/deceleration lanes.

• Lane drops.

• Through lanes that become turn lanes.

• Shoulder drops to accommodate a turn lane.

• Roundabouts.

• Bus stops near intersections (see D.2).

The photo to the top left shows an acceleration lane with a 

bikeable shoulder beyond. Bicyclists have difficulty merging with 

higher-speed vehicle traffic at these locations because they are 

typically travelling at slower speeds and have a narrower profile, 

making them more difficult to be seen by accelerating and 

merging traffic.

The following conditions present at multilane intersections can also 

make left turns difficult for cyclists:

• Lane changes and U-turns to access crossovers.

• Wide curb radii encouraging high speed turns.

• Conflicts with continuous or channelized right-turn lanes and 

weaving traffic.

• Wide intersections.

• Unclear or long merge areas.

The diagram to the bottom left shows how placement of driveways 

and bus stops may affect the safety of cyclists.

As shown in the bottom graphic, drivers entering from side streets 

or driveways may not see cyclists behind vehicles, especially large 

vehicles, such as buses. The placement of a bus stop can increase 

cyclists’ risk (see also E.9).
65

Prompt List: C. Intersections, Crossings, and Interchanges

C.2: Are intersection/interchange accommodations designed to reduce conflicting movements and communicate proper bicycle positioning through the crossing?

Sub-Prompt Description

C.2.3: Are cyclists safely accommodated 

on each approach to an intersection?

Accommodations (e.g., bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, shared 

use paths, etc.) on intersection approaches can affect a cyclist’s 

safety. Special consideration may be needed to permit a leftturning bicyclist to merge across heavy volumes of traffic or to 

accommodate two-stage left turns (see Figure 13). Right-of-way 

assignments and crossing treatments should be consistent along 

the evaluation corridor to ensure uniform expectations for all road 

users. Other elements to consider include: 

• Storage length, particularly at path crossings. 

• Adequacy of gaps in traffic at unsignalized crossings (see 

C.2.7 and D.7).

C.2.4: Where pedestrian 

accommodations are present, are cyclists 

adversely affected?

Traffic calming measures (e.g., refuge islands, curb bulb outs, 

etc.) help manage traffic speeds and can enhance the safety of 

a roadway for all users. The measures should be designed with 

cyclists in mind. For example, curb changes should not be abrupt 

or encroach into the bicycle facility (see D.2).

The photo to the left illustrates a curb bulb-out extending into a 

bicycle lane.

C.2.5: Are there any unique intersection 

characteristics that may pose a problem 

for cyclists?

Potential specific considerations include:

• A skewed intersection can direct a driver’s focus away from 

approaching cyclists, present sight distance issues, and encourage 

higher speed movements through an intersection.

• Roundabout design should pay particular attention to properly 

accommodating cyclists and should consider interactions and 

transitions for all modes. Vehicle volumes and speeds should be 

considered when evaluating appropriate bicycle accommodations 

in roundabout design. It is important to consider whether the 

transition meets the safety needs of all users (see D.7).
66

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

C.2: Are intersection/interchange accommodations designed to reduce conflicting movements and communicate proper bicycle positioning through the crossing?

Sub-Prompt Description

C.2.6: Do at-grade railroad crossings 

safely accommodate bicyclists?

Railroad crossings with skewed tracks can result in an increased 

crash risk for cyclists. Preferably, cycling facilities should cross 

railroad tracks as close to perpendicular as practical. Longitudinal 

tracks and very acute crossing angles over tracks can trap bicycle 

wheels. Additionally, crossing surfaces can be slippery in wet 

weather, especially when slip-resistant measures are not used (see 

B.4.1 and D.4).

Good pavement conditions, extra paved width to allow crossing 

closer to perpendicular, and flangeway fillers help minimize risk on 

low-speed, low-train-volume tracks. 

The photo to the left illustrates a shared use path crossing of a 

railroad track. Trains in the area are infrequent and pass through the 

corridor at low speeds. 

C.2.7: Do facilities avoid or minimize the 

need for the cyclist to slow down or stop 

unnecessarily?

On-road accommodations: cyclists on the road are subject to the 

same rules that govern vehicles, and therefore, they must obey 

traffic control devices that require vehicles to stop or slow down.

Off-road accommodations: cyclists on off-road separated facilities 

(e.g., side paths and shared use paths) may be required to slow 

or stop at intersecting driveways or paths. Sight lines on the 

intersection approaches must be kept clear and priority should 

be considered for the heavier movement (e.g., cyclists across 

private driveways and minor, low-speed, low-volume streets) (see 

also C.10).

The photo to the left shows an example of a side path marked 

to illustrate the intent for cyclists to stop at driveways and cross 

streets (the markings do not conform to the MUTCD). However, 

if these stops are frequent or if conflicts with cross traffic are a 

rare occurrence, cyclists may disregard the traffic control. In some 

places, the stop or yield controls on the side paths directly conflict 

with or contradict other traffic control devices, which may create 

confusion in right-of-way that can result in crashes. 
67

Prompt List: C. Intersections, Crossings, and Interchanges

C.3: Do traffic operations (especially during peak periods) create a safety concern for cyclists?

Sub-Prompt Description

C.3.1: Are there sufficient gaps in traffic 

or gaps created by geometry or traffic 

controls for bicycle crossings?

Depending on the peak traffic volumes and vehicular speeds, 

various measures (e.g., yield or stop signs, traffic signals, median 

refuge, grade separation, etc.) may be installed to create adequate 

gaps for cyclists to safely cross. The RSA team should assess 

whether the installed measures are effective. The lack of adequate 

gaps may discourage cyclists from using the intended crossings 

and routes. Note that it is within the ability of the RSA team 

to recommend a study, but it may not be within its ability to 

recommend installation of devices that must meet warrants.

The photo to the left depicts bicycle-only left-turn bays to facilitate 

left turns at an uncontrolled intersection.

C.3.2: What traffic movements increase 

bicycle/other road user crash risk?

Peak traffic volumes and high vehicular speeds present operational 

and safety issues to cyclists. These include heavy volumes to 

weave through, lack of bicycle detection, and poor visibility. Bicycle 

exposure while turning or waiting to turn creates the potential for 

“right hook” or “left cross” incidents, particularly at locations where 

intersection geometry increases this exposure (e.g., multiple turn 

lanes) (see Figure 13).

Other considerations include:

• Do high pedestrian and bicycle traffic volumes result in crossing 

cyclists conflicting with crossing pedestrians? 

• Are there conflicts on the approaches to the intersection? 

• Do pedestrians and cyclists share space, and are they properly 

using the facility?

C.4: Are there any obstacles at crossings? Are the manhole covers properly designed?

Manhole covers and drainage grates should be properly designed and installed. In addition to the orientation and 

spacing of grating bars, the structures should also be level with the pavement surface to avoid possible trapping 

or tipping issues. When practical, surface objects should be placed outside turning radii, where a cyclist is less 

balanced (see A.4.5).
68

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

C.5/C.6 and D.5/D.6: If bollards or other physical terminal devices are used, is the risk of occasional motorized 

vehicles greater than the risk of a fixed object within the travel way? 

Sub-Prompt Description

Use of bollards on shared use paths should be based on an 

assessment of the relative risk of motorized vehicles using the 

facility compared to safety issues associated with a permanent fixed 

object within the path travel way. If the risk of motorized traffic is 

greater, then consider the following with regards to bollard use:

• Proper installation.

• Visibility and retroreflectivity of device.

• Adequate width for all users (recumbent bicycles and bicycles 

with trailers are wider).

• Serving their intended purpose.

• Placement relative to the bicyclist’s travel path.

Bollards that are not set back from the intersection can result 

in increased cyclist exposure to motor vehicles as they slow or 

stop to access the facility. Bicycles with long wheelbases such 

as trailers, “trail-a-bikes”, and tandems require greater clearance 

before encountering bollards, especially if near horizontal curves or 

intersections. A common crash type with these obstructions occurs 

when one path user obstructs the advance view of the bollard 

and then moves sideways to avoid it, leaving the following rider 

without time to react or avoid the obstacle. This crash type is still an 

issue for reflectorized or conspicuous bollards. 

The top photo to the left shows a moveable bollard retracted to 

just above the pavement surface. This may present visibility issues 

for cyclists using this facility as retraction reduces the bollards 

conspicuity.

The bottom photo to the left shows bollards that are placed in the 

bicyclist’s travel path but do not effectively eliminate access for 

motor vehicles, which can enter on the right side of the bollard. 

Appropriate bollard positioning typically involves installing either 

one or three bollards positioned along the centerline and edge 

lines to minimize lane positioning issues for bicyclists that may lead 

to head-on bicycle crashes. For example, the use of two bollards 

may cause a situation where two head-on cyclists may choose 

to use the center gap at the same time and lead to a head-on 

collision. 
69

Prompt List: C. Intersections, Crossings, and Interchanges

C.7: Are bicycle accommodations continuous, or do they end abruptly at crossings/intersections/interchanges?

It is desirable to provide continuous and connected bicycle facilities through intersections and interchanges to 

minimize confusion and conflicting maneuvers between all modes. 

When bicycle lanes terminate near an intersection, some provision should be considered for a short distance after 

the intersection (e.g., a short section of bicycle lane or shared lane markings) to guide the bicyclist through the 

intersection. When bicycle lanes are dropped across an intersection, adequate advance warning of the changing 

conditions should be provided. 

The desirable bicycle travel path may not be readily apparent through some intersection or interchange 

configurations with offset lanes or merge areas. These configurations may also restrict the amount of travel space 

available to a cyclist. Consideration may be given to defining lanes through the intersection (see D.2 and D.7).

C.8/D.8: Are the intersection/transition and paths leading to the transition adequately lit? 

Lighting illuminates the roadway surface and surroundings. Lighting also enhances the visibility of all road users in 

these low-light conditions:

• Night.

• Dusk or dawn.

• Locations where conditions may change rapidly, such as under bridges or in tunnels (see B.8).

Approach lighting provides time to assess conditions and helps a road user to properly adjust to those conditions 

(see A.8).

C.9: Can cyclists see approaching vehicles/pedestrians at all legs of an intersection/crossing, and vice versa?

Intersections should have adequate sight and stopping distances 

from all approaches based on prevailing vehicle speeds. The 

placement of the stop (or yield) lines should allow drivers to see 

approaching cyclists, and vice versa. Sight distance should be 

adequate at crossings so that cyclists can see and be seen. Sight 

triangles may be obscured by roadside features such as:

• Signs.

• Fences.

• Trees/vegetation.

• Embankments.

• Stopped/parked vehicles.

Consideration should be given to both permanent and temporary 

features.

In the photo to the left, visibility between the parallel sidewalk and 

side path is obstructed by a row of tall vegetation. The vegetation 

also limits visibility of pedestrians using the crossing path. This 

planting inhibits the ability of pedestrians and cyclists to make 

visual contact with each other and establish intent (see A.9.1)

User awareness should also be considered as described in 

Figure 14.
70

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

C.10: Do signs and markings along the cycling facility clearly indicate the cyclist path and right-of-way at intersections?

Traffic control devices that are relevant to bicycle travel should 

provide clear and consistent messages to all road users. Pavement 

markings and signs should be consistent with each other to 

correctly convey their intent (see A10.1 and B.10). 

In the top photo to the left, pavement markings indicate proper 

placement for cyclists at the intersection.

In the bottom photo, the centerline on the shared use path is 

dashed. There is no signing or markings to indicate which approach 

has the right-of-way. Solid lines should be used where there are 

potentially conflicting movements, steep gradients, or where 

visibility is reduced.

C.11: Does the traffic signal design accommodate all users?

Sub-Prompt Description

C.11.1: Are signals, bicycle detection, and 

bicycle push buttons properly located 

and functioning?

Do problems result from inconsistent 

bicycle detection types?

Many actuated traffic signals are not configured to detect 

bicycles. Signal detection should be considered, particularly when 

concurrent vehicular traffic volumes are low, as the signal may 

require an automatic recall setting to service bicycles. All signal 

detection types should be maintained and checked to operate 

effectively for cyclists. Consider whether cyclists are able to 

determine the location to trigger detection and whether observed 

cyclist stopping locations don’t match up well with detector 

locations. If used, push-buttons should be placed conveniently for 

the cyclists to reach.
71

Prompt List: C. Intersections, Crossings, and Interchanges

C.11: Does the traffic signal design accommodate all users?

Sub-Prompt Description

C.11.2: Are there conflicting traffic 

movements during bicycle crossing 

phases?

Signal phasing should consider the needs of crossing cyclists. If 

significant conflicts are present, then exclusive bicycle phases may 

be considered. Particular attention should be given to locations 

where a side path is present at a signalized intersection. At this type 

of location, the signal timing should provide adequate gaps and 

should minimize conflicts between path users and motor vehicles 

within the crosswalk and between pedestrians and cyclists on 

other connecting facilities, such as sidewalks. 

The photo to the left shows a shared use path with a separate 

signal for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to cross the intersection. 

However, pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk may conflict with the 

path movement. Traffic signs and pavement markings are used to 

direct traffic through the intersection and alert cyclists of crossing 

pedestrians, but the combined use of stop and yield lines may be 

confusing to approaching path users (the combined use of stop 

and yield lines does not conform to the MUTCD). 

C.11.3: Do traffic signal clearance 

intervals safely accommodate cyclists?

Signal timing should allow for adequate clearance intervals for 

cyclists in a variety of situations, including standing starts and 

rolling approaches. Signal phasing, timing, and coordination may 

need to be adjusted if the end of the progression does not provide 

adequate time for a cyclist to clear an intersection prior to the 

release of an opposing traffic stream.

The photo to the left shows a cyclist waiting for a dedicated bicycle 

traffic signal phase.
72

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

D. Transitions

D.2: Are transition areas designed appropriately with logical termini or do they end abruptly, potentially contributing to sudden and difficult merges, uncontrolled crossings, or behaviors such as wrong-way riding?

Transitions should be designed to meet the cyclist’s expectations, 

provide adequate space for adjustments by the cyclist, and provide 

sufficient storage and turning space at a transition crossing, such as 

in the bicycle lane transitioning to a shared lane on a perpendicular 

street as seen in the photo on the top left. The crossing is signalized 

to assign the right-of-way between motorists and cyclists. 

Pedestrians and cyclists are also provided separated crossing paths. 

Transitions should not be abrupt or contribute to undesirable riding 

behaviors (e.g., riding the wrong way, crossing at an undesired 

location, etc.). Transitions that may be of particular concern include:

• Shoulder/lane drops.

• A through lane becomes a turn lane.

• Multiple turn lanes.

• Multiple merges.

• Continuous turn lanes.

• Path terminus.

• Termini where traffic volumes and speeds change.

The bottom photo to the left shows a wide, bikeable shoulder 

terminating at an intersection (see also A.2 and C.2).

D.3: Do shared roadway geometrics change substantially or frequently?

Frequent or sudden drops of shoulders or bicycle lanes can discourage use and result in cyclists selecting alternate 

routes. Changes should be identified appropriately and conveyed to the cyclists in enough advance time and 

distance to enable them to react accordingly (see also A.3 and A.7). Considerations at bike facility transition areas 

may include:

• Are appropriate warnings and transitions provided?

• Are there consistent levels of accommodation for bicyclists provided along a corridor where there are similar traffic 

volumes and speeds?

D.4: Is there an abrupt change in riding surface?

Surface changes from paved to crushed stone or other riding surfaces can cause cyclists to lose control depending 

upon entry speed. Surface changes without warning, particularly at the end of a downgrade or in a curve, can be 

particularly detrimental (see also A.4.2 and A.4.7).

D.5 and D.6: If physical terminal or transition devices are used, are they needed and is there sufficient width on 

either side (see C.5 and C.6)? 
73

Prompt List: D. Transitions

D.7: Is there a safe way for cyclists from both directions to access connections or continue to other destinations 

along the street network?

Transitions from one facility to another (e.g., shared use path to 

roadway shoulder) should be designed so as to direct users to ride 

in the correct direction of travel. Roadway and path alignment 

along with the presence of marked crossings and wayfinding signs 

all influence how the facilities are used. These characteristics may 

contribute to inappropriate riding behavior such as wrong-way 

riding (see also A.7). 

The photo to the left shows the transition between an off-road 

shared use path and a bicycle lane (note that diamond pavement 

markings for a bicycle lane do not conform to the MUTCD). The 

alignment, signing, and markings insert bicyclists into a driveway 

location from an unexpected direction and appear to encourage 

wrong-way riding in the bicycle lane.

Consideration should also be given to the location of popular 

origins and destinations along a road that are frequented by 

cyclists. Accommodations should be provided (as necessary) to 

cross cyclists from one side of the roadway to the other. 

D.8: Are the intersection/transition and paths leading to the transition adequately lit (see C.8)?

D.9: Is the visibility of cyclists as they make the transition from one facility or roadway geometry to another adequate from the perspective of all road users?

The transition, whether along a roadway or at an intersection, 

should allow drivers to see cyclists and understand their path and 

intent, and vice versa. The following should be investigated:

• Obstructions caused by roadside features (e.g., fences and 

vegetation).

• Adequacy of warning signs.

• Location of the transition with respect to roadway geometry (e.g., 

shoulder drop and turn lanes) (see also A.9 and C.9).

The picture to the left depicts a bike lane that hooks right through 

a major intersection and transitions to a protected bikeway. 

Chevrons on the pavement help guide cyclists and show motorists 

the path provided for cyclists through the intersection (note that 

the chevron pavement markings do not conform to the MUTCD). 

D.10 and D.11: Are signs and markings at transition areas appropriate?

Transitions and termini should be appropriately signed and marked 

to warn cyclists of conditions ahead, particularly at locations 

at which cyclists do not expect transitions or termini. Likewise, 

motorized vehicles should have adequate warning when off-road 

bicycle facilities transition to on-road facilities. The intended paths 

of all road users should also be appropriately signed and marked 

at the point of transition. Additional attention may be given to 

locations with high volumes of unfamiliar users or tourists. 

Driveway

Path

Bike Lane
74

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

E. Transit

E.2 and E.3: Are transit facilities designed and placed to minimize conflicts with other modes?

Sub-Prompt Description

E.2.1: Are transit stop locations 

appropriate for cyclists?

Transit stops and shelters should be located near cyclist generators 

and along expected paths connected by safe crossings (see also 

A.2 and C.2).

E.2.2: Do transit facilities provide 

adequate separation between cyclists 

and other modes of travel?

Transit facilities (e.g., shared bus/bike lanes) should consider 

operational and safety impacts of shared space with cyclists 

and other travel modes (see A.2 and A.3). Potential conflicts may 

occur between transit vehicles and cyclists at or near transit stops 

and in shared lanes for transit vehicles and bicycles. Specific 

considerations include:

• Merging maneuvers of cyclists in and out of travel lanes.

• Weaving maneuvers of cyclists and transit vehicles.

• Spacing of bus stops and frequency of conflicts/merging/weaving 

maneuvers.

The top photo to the left shows an area where high volumes 

of cyclists and regular bus service can create frequent conflicts 

between buses and cyclists. One cyclist is riding in the bus driver’s 

blind spot. This condition requires vigilance from the bus operator 

and predictable behavior from the cyclist. 

The operating widths of buses and bicycles should also be taken 

into consideration. The photo at the bottom left shows a shared 

lane marking set 11 feet from the curb at a bus stop. An RSA team 

should consider whether the pavement marking placement and 

visibility may cause a conflict between cyclists and a waiting bus 

(see A.10). 

E.2.3: Do waiting areas at transit stops 

provide sufficient space for cyclists?

Conflicts may occur between cyclists and bus passengers at transit 

stops. Considerations include:

• Space for boarding and alighting cyclists and other transit users 

during peak periods.

• Clear paths for cyclists and pedestrians (see C.2). 

The photo to the left shows a designated bike waiting area at a bus 

stop. The designated area is at the loading area for cyclists outside 

of pedestrian paths on the sidewalk. In addition to reducing 

conflicts, designated waiting areas may also improve transit 

operational efficiency.
75

Prompt List: E. Transit

E.2 and E.3: Are transit facilities designed and placed to minimize conflicts with other modes?

Sub-Prompt Description

E.2.4: Do paths accessing transit stops 

minimize conflicts between cyclists and 

other modes of travel?

Conflicts may occur between cyclists and pedestrians on 

designated paths accessing transit facilities (see E.7). 

In the photo to the left, a cyclist is using an automated fare 

collector and is partially blocking access to the platform. 

Furthermore, the width of the access ramp to the platform is 

narrow and may not adequately accommodate peak demands, 

especially when pedestrians with mobility restrictions and cyclists 

are both present.

E.4: Are transit stops maintained during periods of inclement weather?

Sub-Prompt Description

E.4.1: Is snow removed from waiting 

areas at transit stops? Is there sufficient 

storage area for removed snow?

When heavy snow is common, snow removal and storage should 

maintain full access to facilities. 

E.4.2: Have the effects of weather been 

adequately considered?

Weather can have a major impact on access to transit, particularly 

considering the placement of transit stops near intersections. 

Specific considerations may include:

• Drainage around a transit stop should not limit access for cyclists 

(see A.4).

• Shelter space allows for all weather use, particularly at highactivity stops. Designs for overhead structures should consider 

maximum heights for cyclists and whether cyclists are provided 

with riding and waiting spaces (see B.5).

E.5: Is the waiting area free of temporary / permanent obstructions that constrict its width or block access to the 

bus stop?

Obstructions in waiting areas, which can be temporary or 

permanent, may limit accessibility of passengers resulting in 

unanticipated behaviors and travel patterns by all transit users. 

Obstructions may include:

• Newspaper stands.

• Street furniture.

• Vegetation.

• Bicycle parking.

The photo to the left shows a location where the sidewalk was 

widened and bike racks were installed in the street furniture zone 

to maintain adequate access to a busy subway station.
76

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

E.6: Are bicycle accommodations connected and convenient for transit users?

Continuity and connectivity should be considered on all facilities 

for cyclists accessing transit, including:

• Paths accessing transit.

• Waiting areas at transit stops.

• Bicycle parking at or near transit.

The photo to the left shows covered bicycle parking conveniently 

located behind a bus stop, with wide paths leading to the stop. 

Bicycle parking should be located as close to the activity as 

possible without impeding or conflicting with other users (see D.7 

and E.2). 

E.7: Are crossings convenient and connected to continuous facilities for cyclists?

Transit routes are often located along arterials with relatively high traffic volumes traveling at high speeds. Typical 

considerations regarding cyclists crossing to transit are described in detail in Section C: Intersections, Crossings, and 

Interchanges and can be summarized by the following: 

• Adequacy of gaps created for cyclists to cross to transit stops.

• Level of traffic control.

• Directness of route.

E.8: Are transit access ways and facilities adequately lit?

Transit stops, particularity those with high activity at night, should be adequately lit to identify conflict points 

between transit users. Areas of concern may include:

• Approaches to a stop.

• Area around a stop.

• Paths to bicycle parking (see A.8, C.8, and D.8).

E.9: Is the visibility of cyclists using the facility adequate from the perspective of all road users?

Open sight lines should be maintained between approaching buses and passenger waiting/loading areas, shelters, 

bike racks, etc. Consideration should be given to the speed at which a cyclist may approach transit stops or 

pedestrian-oriented spaces and where cyclists will load on the bus. Cyclists may wait at a location close to the front 

of the bus, which sometimes places them on the far side of a shelter where they cannot be seen. Visibility and sight 

distance issues that may cause conflicts between users include: 

• Transit vehicles.

• Vegetation.

• Shelters and other structures.

• Transit users (pedestrians and cyclists). 

User awareness should also be considered as described in Chapter 3, Figure 14 (see also A.9, B.9 and C.2).

Bus 

Stop

Covered Bicycle 

Parking
77

Prompt List: E. Transit

E.10: Are signs and markings at designated areas for cyclists using transit appropriate?

Pavement markings and signage should clearly indicate assigned 

space on the roadway, especially in areas where there is a high 

potential for conflict (see A.10). Additionally, cyclists waiting 

to board or depart transit vehicles should not conflict with 

pedestrians (see E.2.3).

In the photo to the left, the bike lane pavement markings have 

faded. Pavement markings typically have a shorter life where there 

is heavy traffic crossing the markings, such as at this heavily-used 

bus stop. 

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

79

References

1. Federal Highway Administration. The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-Year Status 

Report. May 2010. 

http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/15-year_report.pdf.

2. Marin County Bicycle Coalition. Marin Pedals Ahead. 

http://www.marinbike.org/News/Articles/MarinPedalsAhead.shtml.

3. The Washington Post. Bicycle Program Makes District Easier Place to Get Around, Residents 

Say. November 26, 2010. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/

AR2010112604663_3.html?sid=ST2010112605367.

4. Campaign to Protect Pedestrians, Cyclists as Number of Crashes in the District Rises. 

March 30, 2011. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-starts-campaign-to-protect-pedestrians-cyclistsas-number-of-crashes-rises/2011/03/29/AF9GH83B_story.html.

5. New York City Department of Transportation. Commuter Cycling Indicator. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/nycbicyclescrct.shtml.

6. United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Nationwide 

Personal Transportation Survey. Washington, D.C., 1990.

7. Hunter, W. W., J. C. Stutts, W. E. Pein, and C. L. Cox. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the 

Early 1990s. FHWA-RD-95-163. June 1996. 

http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedBikeCrashTypes.pdf.

8. Stutts, J. C. and W. W. Hunter. Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis Based on 

Hospital Emergency Department Data. Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-078. 1997. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/99078/index.cfm.
80

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

9. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts: Bicyclists and 

Other Cyclists. 2007. 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.pdf.

10. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. Publication No. FHWASA-06-06. February 2005. 

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

11. Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists. Publication No. FHWA-SA-07-007. 

July 2007. 

http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.pdf.

12. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the 

Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

13. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Roadway Separated Bikeways in the US and Canada: 

Past, Present, & Future. June 9, 2009. 

http://www.actia2022.com/pdfs/bikeped/Separated_Bikeways%20Sallaberry%20

presentation.pdf.

14. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 2009.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

15. United States Department of Transportation. Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. 

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/bicycle-ped.html.

16. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the 

National Capital Region. October 2010. 

http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/o15fW1g20101110111248.pdf.

17. CROW. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. 2006.

18. Adaptation from CROW. Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. 2006.

19. Cambridge Environmental and Transportation Planning Division. Bicycle Trends in 

Cambridge. April 2010. 

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/et/bike/bike_trends.pdf.

20. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. North Carolina Bicycle 

Crash Types, 2005-2009. August 2011. 

www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/pdf/summary_bike_types05-09.pdf.

21. Thomas, L., C. Hamlett, W. Hunter, and D. Gelinne. Identifying and Prioritizing Locations for 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Improvements in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2009.

22. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. North Carolina Bicycle 

Crash Facts 2004 – 2008. August 2010. 

www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/pdf/summary_bike_facts04-08.pdf.

23. Harkey, D. L., S. Tsai, L. Thomas, and W. W. Hunter. Pedestrian & Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool 

(PBCAT): Version 2.0 Application Manual. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-06-089; Software FHWAHRT-06-091. 2006. 

www.walkinginfo.org/facts/pbcat/index.cfm.
81

References

24. MetroPlan Orlando. Orlando Area Bicyclist Crash Study: A Role-Based Approach to Crash 

Countermeasures. A Study of Bicyclist-Motorist Crashes in the Orlando Urban Area in 2003 

and 2004. 

http://www.metroplanorlando.com/files/view/bicyclist-crash-study.pdf.

25. League of American Bicyclists. Smart Cycling: Traffic Skills 101.

26. United States Department of Transportation. Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. March 11, 2010.

27. Oregon Department of Transportation. Bike Lane Matrix. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike_lane_matrix.pdf?ga=t.

28. Axelson, P., D. Chesney, D. Galvan, J. Kirschbaum, P. Longmuir, C. Lyons, and K. Wong. 

Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part I of II: Review of Existing Guidelines and 

Practices. Federal Highway Administration, 1999.

29. Kirschbaum, J., P. Axelson, P. Longmuir, K. Mispagel, J. Stein, and D. Yamada. Designing 

Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide. Federal Highway 

Administration, 2001.