Study Details
Study Title: Safety Performance Functions for Bicycle Crashes in New Zealand and Australia
Authors: Turner et al.
Publication Date:JAN, 2011
Abstract: After decades of decline, recreational and commuter cycling is becoming more popular in many Australasian cities. While this is encouraging from a sustainable transport and public health perspective, a major concern to national, state and local governments is the higher crash risk faced by cyclists compared with drivers or passengers in motor-vehicles, particularly when cycling on roads. It is important that transport professionals understand the level of risk faced by cyclists within various parts of the road network and the measures they can employ to mitigate that risk. This paper presents research findings from three main safety studies undertaken in New Zealand using data from New Zealand cities and Adelaide in Australia. Research has been undertaken using both generalized linear modelling and before-after control-impact methods. Over the various studies, crash, traffic and cycle volumes and layout data has been collected for urban road links, traffic signals and roundabouts. Flow-only models have demonstrated a "safety in numbers" effect; with crash risk per cyclist shown to be lower as cycle volumes increase. By adding other variables to the models, it is been possible to gain a level of understanding of the impact that road section length, motor-vehicle speed, visibility, presence and type of cycle facilities and lane and road width have on various crash types. Before and after analysis has been employed to help understand whether there is any bias in the sites that have received cycle facilities The research findings concerning the effect of cycle facilities in improving safety are mixed. Well designed facilities, including those of adequate width and painted with colour appear to perform the best.
Study Citation: Turner, S. A., Wood, G., Hughes, T., and Singh, R., "Safety Performance Functions for Bicycle Crashes in New Zealand and Australia." Presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Paper #11-3156, Washington, D.C., (2011).
Study Report: Download the Study Report Document
CMFs Associated With This Study
Category: Bicyclists
Countermeasure: Installation of bicycle lanes at signalized intersections
| CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
|---|
| 1.37 | -37 |  | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 0.8 | 20 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 0.63 | 37 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 1.33 | -33 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 1.01 | -1 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 2.03 | -103 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 0.42 | 58 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 1.02 | -2 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
Countermeasure: Installation of bicycle lanes at signalized intersections with exclusive right turn lanes
| CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
|---|
| 1.36 | -36 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 0.97 | 3 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
Countermeasure: Installation of bicycle lanes at signalized intersections with shared through/right turn lanes
| CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
|---|
| 1.4 | -40 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
| 0.6 | 40 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
Countermeasure: Installation of colored bicycle lanes at signalized intersections
| CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
|---|
| 0.61 | 39 | | Vehicle/bicycle | All | All | Urban and suburban |
