Rob Methorst

Traffic conflicts on bicycle paths: A systematic observation of behaviour from video

In The Netherlands, on bicycle paths, single-bicycle accidents, bicycle-bicycle and bicycle-moped accidents constitute a considerable share of all bicyclist injuries. Over three quarters of all hospitalised bicyclist victims in the Netherlands cannot be directly related to a crash with motorised traffic. As the usage of bicycle paths steadily increases, it is to be expected that safety on bicycle paths will become a major issue in the coming years in The Netherlands. A study was conducted into the behaviour of bicyclists and moped riders to improve traffic safety on bicycle paths. By behavioural observations with video, mutual conflicts and bicyclist behaviour on bicycle paths were recorded and analysed, among other things by means of the conflict observation method DOCTOR (Dutch Objective Conflict Technique for Operation and Research). The explorative phase of the study (phase 1), included two research locations, one in the city of Amsterdam and one in Eindhoven. The results gave guidance for a better understanding of the behaviour between different users of separate two-directional bicycle paths. An example includes the relationship between bicyclist-moped rider behaviour and the width of the bicycle path. For a condition with busy bicycle traffic in both directions the width of the bicycle path in Amsterdam (effectively 3.55m) is relatively narrow, whereas the bicycle path width in Eindhoven (>4.94m) appears to be sufficient to accommodate large flows of bicyclists. Because of a large flow of crossing pedestrians resulting in (severe) conflicts with bicyclists in Amsterdam, additional countermeasures to better control these interactions are needed. The DOCTOR conflict observation method from video appears to be applicable for conflicts between intersecting road users and for head-on conflicts on the bicycle path. Conflict situations between bicyclists in the same direction (constituting an important share of injury accidents on bicycle paths) require an additional and more general systematic observation of specific behaviour. Therefore, phase 2 of the project will focus in particular on interactions between bicycle path users in the same direction and underlying processes.

Pedestrian falls : A review of the literature and future research directions

INTRODUCTION Pedestrian falls (PFs) - falls in public spaces without collisions with other road users - are a significant cause of serious transport-related injuries, amounting to three-quarters of all pedestrians admitted to hospital. METHODS This scoping review examined peer-reviewed research on PFs published between 1995 and 2015. Electronic databases (Scopus, SafetyLit, and PubMed) were used to find studies identifying PFs or outdoor falls (the latter also including falls in gardens). RESULTS We identified only 28 studies reporting relevant information on PFs (i.e., 15 prospective, 10 retrospective, and 3 intervention studies). The results show that more walking is related to a lower risk of PFs. Older people, especially older women, have a higher risk of (injurious) PFs. Outdoor fall victims have equally good or better health characteristics and scores on balance tests compared to those who have not experienced such falls. Road factors such as uneven surfaces, busy junctions, stairs, and slippery surfaces seem to play an important role in PFs, but much of the research on these factors is of a qualitative nature. CONCLUSIONS PF victims are generally in good health (apart from normal age-related problems) but at risk due to road factors. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS We recommend to adopt a human factors approach. The road system should be adapted to human capabilities and limitations including those of pedestrians. Measures such as preventing uneven surfaces and good winter maintenance seem to be effective. However, we advise more quantitative research on road factors to inform design guidelines and standards for public space authorities given the qualitative nature of current research on road factors.

Can cycling safety be improved by opening all unidirectional cycle paths for cycle traffic in both directions? A theoretical examination of available literature and data.

Many studies have found bicycle-motor vehicle crashes to be more likely on bidirectional cycle paths than on unidirectional cycle paths because drivers do not expect cyclists riding at the right side of the road. In this paper we discuss the hypothesis that opening all unidirectional cycle paths for cycle traffic in both directions prevent this lack of expectancy and accordingly improves cycling safety. A new national standard requires careful consideration because a reversal is difficult once cyclists are used to their new freedom of route choice. We therefore explored the hypothesis using available data, research, and theories. The results show that of the length of cycle paths along distributor roads in the Netherlands, 72% is bidirectional. If drivers would become used to cyclists riding at the left side of the road, this result raises the question of why bidirectional cycle paths in the Netherlands still have a poor safety record compared to unidirectional cycle paths. Moreover, our exploration suggested that bidirectional cycle paths have additional safety problems. It increases the complexity of unsignalized intersections because drivers have to scan more directions in a short period of time. Moreover, there are some indications that the likelihood of frontal crashes between cyclists increases. We reject the hypothesis that opening all unidirectional cycle paths for cycle traffic in both directions will improve cycle safety. We recommend more attention for mitigating measures given the widespread application of bidirectional cycle paths in the Netherlands.