Route types to motivate cycling

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Route types to motivate cycling"

Chester Hill
10 years ago
Views:

1 Photo Flickr: Boegh Route types to motivate cycling Evidence about route safety & preferences Kay Teschke, Conor Reynolds, Anne Harris, Peter Cripton Mary Chipman, Michael Cusimano, Shelina Babul, Meghan Winters Jeff Brubacher, Steve Friedman, Garth Hunte, Hui Shen

Harris, Peter Cripton Mary Chipman, Michael Cusimano, Shelina

2 Safety concerns main cycling deterrent

3 Cycling injury rates differences Europe & NA Netherlands Denmark Fatalities per 100 million km Injuries per 10 million km Germany United Kingdom Canada - BC United States data sources: International - Pucher & Buehler Transport Reviews, 2008 BC - Teschke et al., Can J Pub Health, 2013

7 United Kingdom 3.6 6 Canada - BC 2.6 26.4 United States 5.8 37.

4 Why the differences? It s not the Europeans who wear helmets

5 Why the differences? Best evidence is safety in numbers Deaths per million work trips by bike % 2% 4% 6% % of work trips by bike Sources: Urban Systems; US Census 2010; Statistics Canada, National Household Survey, 2011

work trips by bike 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0% 2% 4% 6% % of work

6 Why the differences? What about route infrastructure? North American guru John Forester vehicular cycling Image credit: Advocate Magazine

7 Bicyclists Injuries & the Cycling Environment

8 Participating cities Vancouver 2 participating hospitals 0.6 million people rain in winter, temperate summer lots of hills 26 km of bike lanes & paths per 100,000 population 4% of work trips by bike Toronto 3 participating hospitals 2.5 million people snow in winter, heat in summer mostly flat 11 km of bike lanes & paths per 100,000 population 2% of work trips by bike

per 100,000 population 4% of work trips by bike Toronto 3 participating hospitals 2.

9 Study overview Cyclist to Emergency Department Cyclist to emergency department Interview Site observations Data analysis

10 Interview to map route & choose control sites

11 Observations of injury & control sites injury site control site 1 control site 2

12 Case-crossover design features Comparisons cumulated over all person-trips, using conditional likelihood method in Proc Logistic Control sites randomly selected from injury trip: controlling for exposure to risk, i.e., distance ridden on each route type Sites observed by researchers blinded to site status (injury or control): preventing observation bias Comparisons made within a person-trip: controlling for personal & trip characteristics Comparisons cumulated over all person-trips, using conditional logistic regression

13 Study results

14 Participants & trips Toronto 273 Vancouver 417 male 59% 19 to 39 years old 62% income > $50,000 56% cycle > 52 times/year 88% wore helmet 69% wore high viz clothes 33% trip < 5 km 68% weekday, daylight 77% commute 42% other transport 32% 690

times/year 88% wore helmet 69% wore high viz clothes 33%

15 Injury circumstances - % of events Collisions n=497 Car Bus or truck Vehicle door Streetcar or train track Other cycling surface Infrastructure Cyclist Pedestrian Dog Other collision 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Falls n=181 Avoiding motor vehicle collision Avoiding other collision Loss of balance Bike malfunction Braking too hard Item caught in wheel Cornering Clipped into toe clips Other fall Motor vehicle involved, n=331 No Motor vehicle involved, n=347

motor vehicle collision Avoiding other collision Loss of balance Bike malfunction Braking too hard Item caught

16 major street sidewalk cycle track Comparison of 15 route types main focus of study

17 Relative risks by route type s with parked cars shared lane bike lane s, no parked cars shared lane bike lane relative risk 1/100 1/10 1/2 toy 1 10 Local streets bike route bike route with traffic diverters bike route with traffic slowing Separated from traffic sidewalk multiuse path, paved multiuse path, unpaved bike only path cycle track

route bike route with traffic diverters bike route with traffic slowing Separated

18 Relative risks by route type s with parked cars shared lane bike lane s, no parked cars shared lane bike lane relative risk 1/100 1/10 1/2 toy 1 10 Local streets bike route bike route with traffic diverters bike route with traffic slowing Separated from traffic sidewalk multiuse path, paved multiuse path, unpaved bike only path cycle track

19 Relative risks by route type s with parked cars shared lane bike lane relative risk 1/100 1/10 1/2 1 toy 10 s, no parked cars shared lane bike lane Local streets bike route bike route with traffic diverters bike route with traffic slowing Separated from traffic sidewalk multiuse path, paved multiuse path, unpaved bike only path cycle track

20 Relative risks by route type s with parked cars shared lane bike lane relative risk 1/100 1/10 1/2 1 toy 10 s, no parked cars shared lane bike lane Local streets bike route bike route with traffic diverters bike route with traffic slowing Separated from traffic sidewalk multiuse path, paved multiuse path, unpaved bike only path cycle track

21 Relative risks by route type s with parked cars shared lane bike lane relative risk 1/100 1/10 1/2 1 toy 10 s, no parked cars shared lane bike lane Local streets bike route bike route with traffic diverters bike route with traffic slowing Separated from traffic sidewalk multiuse path, paved multiuse path, unpaved bike only path cycle track

22 Relative risks by route type s with parked cars shared lane bike lane relative risk 1/100 1/10 1/2 1 toy 10 s, no parked cars shared lane bike lane Local streets bike route bike route with traffic diverters bike route with traffic slowing Separated from traffic sidewalk multiuse path, paved multiuse path, unpaved bike only path cycle track

23 Relative risks by route type s with parked cars shared lane bike lane relative risk 1/100 1/10 1/2 1 toy 10 s, no parked cars shared lane bike lane Local streets bike route bike route with traffic diverters bike route with traffic slowing Separated from traffic sidewalk multiuse path, paved multiuse path, unpaved bike only path cycle track

24 On or alongside major streets... RR = 0.7 RR = 0.5 RR = 0.1 bike lane with bike lane without parked cars parked cars cycle track

25 On local streets... RR = 0.7 RR = 0.4 traffic slowing traffic diversion

26 Off street... RR = 0.6 RR = 0.8 multi-use paths bike paths

27 bike signage driveways # of marked lanes distance visible along route presence of intersections Other features studied these not significant

28 Downhill grades... RR = 2 sometimes compounded with limited sight lines traffic circles speed bumps

29 Streetcar tracks... RR = 3 many crashes began with motor vehicle avoidance manouevres

30 Construction... RR = 2

31 Limitations Most severe and mildest injuries not included All studies focus on defined categories of injuries here, those treated at emergency department within 24 hours Not possible to test many route designs multiple types of cycle tracks innovative intersection designs More route designs tested than in other studies to date, all objectively measured

32 Are safe routes preferred routes?

33 Survey of preferences 16 route types bike paths 85% paved multi-use paths 77% unpaved multi-use paths 71% cycle tracks 71% local street bike routes with traffic calming 65%

34 Route preference vs. safety route preference Multiuse path paved Multiuse path unpaved shared lane, no parked cars bike lane, parked cars shared lane, parked cars bike lane, no parked cars Bike only path Residential street bike route Residential street bike route & traffic diverters Residential street Cycle track with parked cars no parked cars route safety

35 Route preference vs. safety route preference Multiuse path paved Multiuse path unpaved shared lane, no parked cars bike lane, parked cars shared lane, parked cars bike lane, no parked cars Bike only path Residential street bike route Residential street bike route & traffic diverters Residential street Cycle track s with parked cars no parked cars route safety

36 Route preference vs. safety route preference Multiuse path paved Multiuse path unpaved Multi-use paths shared lane, no parked cars bike lane, parked cars shared lane, parked cars bike lane, no parked cars Bike only path Residential street bike route Residential street bike route & traffic diverters Residential street Cycle track s with parked cars no parked cars route safety

37 Route preference vs. safety route preference Multiuse path paved Multiuse path unpaved Multi-use paths shared lane, no parked cars bike lane, parked cars shared lane, parked cars bike lane, no parked cars Bike only path Residential street bike route Bike-specific facilities Residential street bike route & traffic diverters Residential street Cycle track s with parked cars no parked cars route safety

38 s separated bike lanes cycle tracks Photos Flickr: Paul Krueger Local streets bike routes with traffic diversion Off-street bike only paths

39 Photo Flickr: Boegh thanks to everyone, especially study participants and... Vancouver study team Melody Monro Evan Beaupre Niki Blakely Jill Dalton Martin Kang Theresa Frendo Jack Becker David Hay Peter Stary Toronto study team Lee Vernich Vartouji Jazmaji Kevin McCurley Andrew Thomas Doug Chisholm Nancy Smith Lea Fred Sztabinski David Tomlinson Barbara Wentworth

40 Photo Flickr: Boegh Photo Flickr: Boegh cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca

Route infrastructure and bicycling injury risk

Route infrastructure and bicycling injury risk Results from the Bicyclists Injuries and the Cycling Environment (BICE) Study Anne Harris, Conor Reynolds,Meghan Winters, Peter Cripton, Mary Chipman, Michael