The safety of physically separated cycle tracks compared to marked cycle lanes and mixed traffic conditions in Amsterdam

IF 2.1 4区 工程技术 Q3 TRANSPORTATION
Jan Hendrik Van Petegem, P. Schepers, G. Wijlhuizen
{"title":"The safety of physically separated cycle tracks compared to marked cycle lanes and mixed traffic conditions in Amsterdam","authors":"Jan Hendrik Van Petegem, P. Schepers, G. Wijlhuizen","doi":"10.18757/EJTIR.2021.21.3.5283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bicycle infrastructure is utilised to improve cycling safety and encourage bicycle use as a sustainable and healthy transport mode. This study sets out to assess whether providing physically separated cycle tracks along distributor roads, as prescribed in Dutch design guidelines and the Sustainable Safety vision, yields the expected safety benefits for cyclists. Therefore the safety of physically separated cycle tracks is compared to marked or painted cycle lanes and to mixed traffic conditions at distributor roads with a speed limit of 50 km/h in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The study also includes the presence of the risk factors curbside parking and trams. Since police records are known to underreport single bicycle crashes and other crashes without a motor vehicle involved, ambulance records are used in this study instead. Also, both motor vehicle volumes as well as cyclists counts are taken into account in the crash analysis. By doing so, this study aims to address two weaknesses of previous research, i.e. the lack of control for exposure of cyclists and the use of police recorded crashes which miss the majority of bicycle crashes without motor vehicles.  Results show that, controlled for kilometres travelled by bicycle and by motor vehicle, 50-60% less bicycle crashes occur on distributor roads with cycle tracks compared to those with cycle lanes. Curbside parking and trams are related to an increased likelihood of bicycle crashes, a difference of a factor 2 and 1.7-2 respectively. The authors therefore recommend to favour physically separated cycle tracks over cycle lanes and to take out curbside parking from the cross section as this presents the possibility to introduce cycle tracks in existing cross sections and mitigate an important risk factor concurrently.","PeriodicalId":46721,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18757/EJTIR.2021.21.3.5283","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPORTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Bicycle infrastructure is utilised to improve cycling safety and encourage bicycle use as a sustainable and healthy transport mode. This study sets out to assess whether providing physically separated cycle tracks along distributor roads, as prescribed in Dutch design guidelines and the Sustainable Safety vision, yields the expected safety benefits for cyclists. Therefore the safety of physically separated cycle tracks is compared to marked or painted cycle lanes and to mixed traffic conditions at distributor roads with a speed limit of 50 km/h in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The study also includes the presence of the risk factors curbside parking and trams. Since police records are known to underreport single bicycle crashes and other crashes without a motor vehicle involved, ambulance records are used in this study instead. Also, both motor vehicle volumes as well as cyclists counts are taken into account in the crash analysis. By doing so, this study aims to address two weaknesses of previous research, i.e. the lack of control for exposure of cyclists and the use of police recorded crashes which miss the majority of bicycle crashes without motor vehicles.  Results show that, controlled for kilometres travelled by bicycle and by motor vehicle, 50-60% less bicycle crashes occur on distributor roads with cycle tracks compared to those with cycle lanes. Curbside parking and trams are related to an increased likelihood of bicycle crashes, a difference of a factor 2 and 1.7-2 respectively. The authors therefore recommend to favour physically separated cycle tracks over cycle lanes and to take out curbside parking from the cross section as this presents the possibility to introduce cycle tracks in existing cross sections and mitigate an important risk factor concurrently.
与阿姆斯特丹有标记的自行车道和混合交通条件相比,物理分离的自行车道的安全性
自行车基础设施用于提高自行车安全性,并鼓励将自行车作为一种可持续和健康的交通方式使用。本研究旨在评估按照荷兰设计指南和可持续安全愿景的规定,沿支路提供物理分离的自行车道是否能为骑自行车的人带来预期的安全效益。因此,将物理分离的自行车道的安全性与荷兰阿姆斯特丹有标记或喷漆的自行车道以及限速50公里/小时的分配道路的混合交通条件进行了比较。该研究还包括路边停车和有轨电车风险因素的存在。由于已知警方记录少报了单车碰撞和其他没有机动车参与的碰撞,因此在本研究中使用了救护车记录。此外,在碰撞分析中还考虑了机动车辆的数量和骑自行车的人数。通过这样做,这项研究旨在解决先前研究的两个弱点,即缺乏对骑自行车者暴露的控制,以及使用警方记录的撞车事故,这些撞车事故错过了大多数没有机动车的自行车撞车事故。结果表明,在控制自行车和机动车行驶公里数的情况下,与有自行车道的道路相比,有自行车道道路上发生的自行车碰撞减少了50-60%。路边停车和有轨电车与自行车碰撞可能性增加有关,差异分别为系数2和1.7-2。因此,作者建议在自行车道上采用物理分离的自行车道,并在横截面上取消路边停车,因为这有可能在现有横截面中引入自行车道,同时减轻一个重要的风险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (EJTIR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, freely accessible through the internet. EJTIR aims to present the results of high-quality scientific research to a readership of academics, practitioners and policy-makers. It is our ambition to be the journal of choice in the field of transport and infrastructure both for readers and authors. To achieve this ambition, EJTIR distinguishes itself from other journals in its field, both through its scope and the way it is published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信