safety aspects of contraflow cycling · sels regional informatics centre) fac: formulaires...

ReseaRch and analysis

safety aspects of contraflow cycling

3

cy

cli

st's

va

dem

ecu

m f

oR

th

e b

Ru

ssel

s c

api

tal

Reg

ion

detailed analysis of accidents involv-ing cyclists on cyclist contraflows in the brussels-capital Region (2008, 2009 and 2010)

Cyclist contra-flows encourage more people to travel by bicycle, as they allow cyclists to use safe routes and avoid unnecessary detours.The aims of this study are to:• evaluate the relative risk of cycling accidents in contra-flows compared to the rest

of the road network,• determine the proportion of accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the

flow of traffic,• understand the circumstances of recorded accidents in order to determine

whether the road layout could have contributed to their occurrence, and• propose recommendations for the design of contraflow schemes with a view to

reducing the risk of accident.It implements Action 8.3 of the 2011-2020 Road Safety Action Plan (Plan d’actions sécurité routière/Verkeersveiligheid Actieplan) of the Brussels-Capital Region, and pages 2.1 and 2.2 of the 2010-2015 Cycling Plan (Plan Vélo/Fietsplan) of the Brussels-Capital Region.

Authors

isabelle chalanton (bRsi)

benoît dupriez (bRsi)

Contributors

Marc Broeckaert (bRsi), Patricia Courange (BM) Marianne Courtois (BM), Florence Dekoster (BM), Frederik Depoortere (BM), Karl Determe (BM), Yves Englebin (bRsi), Jean-François Gaillet (bRsi), Françoise Godart (BM) Michèle Guillaume (bRsi), Isabelle Janssens (BM), Laurence Sailliez (bRsi),

Ulric Schollaert (BM), Arnaud Verstraete (De Lille cabinet)

Acknowledgements

We thank the college of attorneys general, which allowed us to consult the official accident reports; the managers and staff of the “traffic accident” department at the brussels police prosecutor’s office, and the

police precincts of brussels-ixelles, brussels-midi, polbruno, and uccle-auderghem-Watermael-boitsfort for their warm welcome during the

analysis of the official reports; and ms caroline Zwaenepoel, of the police operational information directorate of the federal police, who sent us

the essential identification numbers of the official reports.

Layout

Ria de geyter (bRsi)

this brochure can be downloaded from the sites:

www.ibsr.be (webshop.ibsr.be) and www.bruxellesmobilite.irisnet.be

disponible en français. beschikbaar in het nederlands

d/2014/0779/22publisher : camille thiry (brussels mobility)

February 2014

ReseaRch and analysis

Glossary

BM Brussels MobilityCIRB Centre d'Informatique pour

la Région bruxelloise (Brus-sels Regional Informatics Centre)

FAC: Formulaires d’analyse des accidents de la circula-tion avec tués ou blessés (Forms for analysis of traf-fic accidents with death or injuries)

IBSR Institut Belge pour la Sécu-rité Routière (Belgian Road Safety Institute)

PRD Plan Régional de Dével-oppement (Regional Devel-opment Plan)

PV Procès-verbal (Official report)

SU Sens unique(s) (One-way (street(s)))

SUL Sens unique(s) limité(s) (One-way (street(s) with contra-flow cycling))

Cyclist

Vehicle

Pedestrian

Table of contents3

Summary ....................................................................................... 5

1 - Introduction ............................................................................. 7

1.1. Objectives of the study ..............................................................................7

1.2. Context .......................................................................................................7

1.3. Analysis of the literature ...........................................................................8

2 - Methodology .......................................................................... 10

2.1. The mapping step .....................................................................................10

2.1.1. Mapping the SULs .............................................................................................10

2.1.2. Mapping of accidents ........................................................................................10

2.1.3. Selection of the accidents to be analysed ..........................................................10

2.2. Analysis of the accidents ..........................................................................11

3 - Initial observations ............................................................... 12

3.1. Distribution and use of SULs ....................................................................12

3.1.1. One in four streets in the Brussels-Capital Region is a SUL ...............................12

3.1.2. Over 4 in 10 cyclists on a SUL travel against traffic .........................................13

3.2. General characteristics of accidents on SULs ...........................................14

3.2.1. What proportion of accidents occurred on a SUL? .............................................14

3.2.2. How are accidents involving a cyclist on a SUL distributed between an intersection and a road section? ......................................................................16

3.2.3. Are SUL roadways more hazardous than the rest of the network? ....................17

3.2.4. Are there more accidents when cyclists travel against traffic? ..........................21

3.2.5. Are accidents with cyclists travelling against traffic on a SUL serious? ............21

3.2.6. Do cycling accidents on a SUL have a particular distribution as a function of age and gender? ...........................................................................................21

3.2.7. Do cycling accidents on a SUL have a particular distribution in time? ...............22

4

4 - Accident profiles ................................................................... 23

4.1. Accidents at an intersection .....................................................................23

4.2. Accidents on a road section .....................................................................27

5 - Points for discussion ............................................................ 30

5.1. Do special provisions for cyclists ensure safety? .....................................30

5.2. What are the possible conflicts on a SUL? .....................................................31

5.3. Are narrow SULs more hazardous? .......................................................33

5.4. Does positioning of parking to the right or the left have an influence on cyclist safety? ......................................................................................35

5.5. Can profiles of the most hazardous roadways be identified?..................37

6 - Conclusions ........................................................................... 39

7 - Appendices ............................................................................ 41

8 - References ............................................................................. 44

1 Préalables

One street in four in the Brussels-Capital Region has a cyclist contra-flow

There are 404 km (251 miles) of one-way streets with cyclist contra-flow in the Brussels-Capital Region, accounting for 25% of the road network open to cyclists. Nearly 91% of them are local access streets (the “local network”), 6% are local collector roads, 2.5% are primary collector roads, and 0.5% are arterial roads (the “primary network”).

At 48% of intersections in the Region, one or more of the streets has a contra-flow. This is the case for 50.5% of intersections on the local network, 56% of intersections on local collec-tor roads, 44% of intersections on primary col-lector roads, and 34% of intersections on the primary network.

Thus contra-flows constitute a significant part of the Brussels cycling network and contribute to high cycle permeability throughout the city.

Contra-flows are not road safety black spots

Of the 992 cycle accidents analysed, 126 (or 12.7%) involved a cyclist travelling (in either direction) on a road with a cyclist contra-flow, entering an intersection from a contra-flow, or crossing an intersection while heading towards a contra-flow. Only 47 accidents out of 992, or 4.7% of all cycle accidents, involved a cyclist travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow.

When the number of accidents by direction of travel is compared with the number of cyclists travelling in each direction, there are propor-tionally no more accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic than with the traffic; in fact, there are slightly fewer. Studies conducted abroad confirm that the introduc-

tion of contra-flow cycling has not caused a rise in cycle accidents on the roads concerned, and given the advantages it presents, it has an overall positive effect on safety.

Of the 47 accidents involving a cyclist travel-ling against the traffic, 31 (66%) occurred at an intersection. For cyclists travelling with the traffic, the proportion of accidents at intersec-tions (40%) was below the overall average. On sections of road away from intersections the danger is therefore greater when the cyclist is travelling with the traffic, but at intersec-tions the danger is greater when the cyclist is travelling against the traffic. Thus the risk of accident to cyclists travelling with the general traffic flow must not be underestimated, and where necessary solutions must be found.

The highest accident risk for cyclists is on the primary network

The type of road or intersection is a more deci-sive factor in the risk of a cycling accident than the introduction of contra-flow cycling.

The risk of an accident occurring per km of road is over 15 times greater on a road sec-tion or intersection on the primary network than on a road section or intersection on the local network. On the local network, where most contra-flows are located, there are fewer cycle accidents per km on sections of road with contra-flow cycling than on sections of road without contra-flow cycling.

On the basis of cyclist counts, the risk for a cyclist of being involved in an accident is approximately four times greater per km trav-elled on the primary network and twice as great on local collector and primary collector roads than on the local network.

Summary

5

6summary

Failure to give way (yield) is the most common cause of accidents when the cyclist is travelling against the traffic

The main causes of accident when a cyclist is travelling against the traffic are:

• failure to give way (yield) (by one or other of the two road users) at an intersection: 14 accidents

• poor positioning of the road users involved at an intersection: 7 accidents

• vehicle turning at an intersection, cutting across the path of an oncoming cyclist: 6 accidents

• vehicle leaving a parking space on a road section: 6 accidents

• pedestrian crossing a road section: 5 acci-dents

• oncoming vehicle on a road section: 4 ac-cidents.

Studies conducted abroad confirm that most accidents with a cyclist travelling against the traffic take place at an intersection. Accidents on a road section generally involve pedestrians who fail to check whether a cyclist is coming in the opposite direction..

Influence of the width of the roadway and the positioning of parking

The narrowness of streets does not appear to be a major accident factor; narrow streets are awkward, but the number of accidents involving contra-flow cyclists is lower than the proportion of such streets in the road network. The risk to cyclists appears to be less where parking is situated on the left (the main traffic flow being on the right) than where parking is situated on the right. Parking on the left greatly reduces the risk of accidents involving drivers opening car doors without looking, but it involves two main risks for contra-flow cyclists: it encourages the cyclist to veer towards the centre of the road, which is a riski-er position to be in when approaching intersec-tions; and it can mask visibility for pedestrians crossing between two vehicles without paying attention to contra-flow cyclists. A follow-up study would be useful to confirm this analysis with a larger sample of observations.

Conclusion

Overall, the accident risk for cyclists travelling on, entering or leaving a contra-flow is low. Nonetheless, two conclusions can be drawn on intersections: (a) intersections should be prop-erly designed in order to reduce speeds and increase mutual visibility; (b) road users should be encouraged to take greater care when approaching an intersection with a contra-flow.

7

1 - Introduction

1.1. Objectives of the study

Brussels Mobility identified four objectives for this study:

• evaluate the relative risk of accidents for cy-clists on contra-flows compared to the rest of the road network;

• determine the percentage of accidents in-volving a cyclist travelling against the traffic;

• understand the circumstances of the acci-dents to determine whether the road layout could have contributed to their occurrence;

• make recommendations regarding road lay-outs with a view to reducing the accident risk.

1.2. Background

Since 2004, highway authorities have been required to authorise two-way cycling on one-way streets. They can only refuse to do so on grounds of safety, such as insufficient road width, lack of visibility at bends, or excessive traffic speed that has not yet been reduced. Cyclist contra-flows, known in Belgium as “limited one-way streets” (sens unique limité/SULs or beperkt eenrichtingsverkeer/BEV), are indicated by (compulsory) road signs (Royal and Ministerial Decrees of 18 December 2002) and (optional) road markings.

Available road width

<2.6 m 2.6 m >3 m ≥ 3 m

contra-flow prohibited

contra-flow authorised

contra-flow mandatory

Despite the advantages of contra-flows for cyclists - shortest route, avoidance of busy and/or dangerous main roads, eye contact when passing oncoming traffic - some contra-flows are sometimes still perceived as being “dangerous”. It is therefore necessary to evalu-ate contra-flows in order to respond objec-tively to criticisms and comments.

Chapter 2 explains the methodology used. The overall results of the study are presented in Chapter 3, while the accident scenarios identi-

Figure 1 - Introduction of contra-flow cycling depending on available road width according to regulations (Sources: Royal and Ministerial Decrees of 18 December 2002; IBSR 2004)

Figure 2 - F19 + M4 road signs at the entrance to a contra-flow

Figure 3 - C1 + M2 road signs at the exit from a contra-flow.

88

fied as a result of detailed analysis of the offi-cial accident reports are discussed in Chapter 4. A number of specific issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

1.3. Analysis of the litera-ture

There are few published studies on accidents involving cyclists travelling against the traf-fic on contra-flows. However, the progressive introduction of contra-flows in several cities provides us with initial feedback from neigh-bouring countries.

In Germany, cyclist contra-flows have been allowed since 1997, and a few already existed before then. At the end of the 1980s, the city of Munster introduced a number of contra-flows. A study by Planungsgemeinschaft Verkehr (1992) showed that the number and severity of cycling accidents on the roads concerned remained almost unchanged. It also showed that the introduction of contra-flows improved traffic conditions for cyclists, which in turn led to increased use of contra-flows by cyclists. Over half of cyclists considered contra-flows to be safe, while most had encountered critical situations there. For their part, half of motor-ists believed that contra-flows were danger-ous. The main problem cited by both cyclists and motorists was the road width, while most conflicts actually occur at intersections, as on narrow streets road users tend to slow down and adapt their behaviour. Narrow streets are nonetheless more problematic when there is more motorised traffic. The study concludes that the accident risk is similar, or even lower, when the cyclist travels against the traffic than when he travels with the traffic. Better signage of contra-flows, especially by means of road markings, and more awareness-raising meas-ures are desirable.

The study by Alrutz D. et al. (2002), conducted

in 15 German cities, showed that most acci-dents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic occurred with pedestrians who failed to check whether a cyclist was coming in the con-tra-flow direction. Accidents between a cyclist riding against the traffic and a motor vehicle are rather rare and occur mainly at an intersec-tion. The study concludes that the introduction of contra-flows has no negative effects on road safety, and that it is even positive as it enables cyclists to get off busy main roads and use quiet back streets instead.

These conclusions are confirmed by the study conducted by Ryley T and Davies D (1998) in London. Video sequences filmed on five contra-flows showed that cyclists travelling against the traffic were not in danger. Further-more, no accident was recorded following the introduction of contra-flow cycling (during the study period). Most cyclists interviewed felt safe but believed that better signage was necessary.

In France, 215 km (134 miles) of two-way cycling streets were opened during the sum-mer of 2010 in 30 km/h (20 mph) zones in Paris. A study conducted at seven sites by Paris City Hall (2011) showed a sharp increase in use of the roads concerned by cyclists. Despite the increased number of cyclists, there was no increase in the number of accidents. The study also concluded that the introduction of contra-flows is safe and that the much-feared head-on collisions are extremely rare, but that there is a conflict between contra-flow cyclists and pedestrians crossing between parked vehicles.

Other studies conducted in France by CERTU [Centre for Studies on Road Networks, Trans-port, Urban Planning and Public Facilities] (Nuyttens, 2008) with the aim of evaluating contra-flows show that few accidents involve cyclists travelling against the traffic, and that all accidents occur at intersections.

introduction

Finally, in Oslo, the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research has studied the introduc-tion of contra-flows on two roads. In one case, video observations showed that the conversion of a parking lane into a contra-flow cycling lane led to a reduction in the number of con-flicts between cyclists and pedestrians on the pavement (sidewalk), to the satisfaction of pedestrians.

Thus in neighbouring countries the introduc-tion of contra-flows has not caused a rise in cycling accidents on the roads in question and, given the advantages, has a positive overall effect on safety.

introduction9

10

This study comprises two methodological components: the first involves mapping the contra-flows and identifying the exact location of cycling accidents in the Brussels-Capital Region; the second involves analysis of the accidents that occurred on contra-flows or at an intersection with a contra-flow.

2.1. The mapping step

This step is necessary in order to determine which cycling accidents occurred on a contra-flow or at an intersection with a contra-flow, as this information is not mentioned in the acci-dent database provided by the Ministry of Eco-nomic Affairs (SPF Économie/FOD Economie), Directorate-General of Statistics and Economic Information (see explanations below).

2.1.1. Mapping the contra-flows

Mapping of the contra-flows is based on the “UrbAdm_sa” layer of Urbis 20111. We first identified the road network accessible to cyclists by eliminating motorways, tunnels and certain bridges. This network comprises 12,424 sections of roadway and has a total length of 1,654.2 km (1,027.9 miles).

The mapping of one-way streets and one-way streets with cyclist contra-flow is based on the map of the Brussels-Capital Region for active travel modes (cycling and walking), September 2011 edition. As this source has some errors, it was checked against the One-Way Map appli-cation of the Brussels Regional Informatics Centre (CIRB/CIRG) and Google Street View. As these two sources are not entirely up to date, there may be some inaccuracies in the map-ping of one-way streets and one-way streets with cyclist contra-flow.

2.1.2. Mapping of accidents

The cycling accidents were first identified using the database of accidents involving injury compiled each year by the Ministry of Economic Affairs(SPF Économie/FOD Econo-mie), Directorate-General of Statistics and Eco-nomic Information. These data, extracted from the forms for the analysis of traffic accidents with fatalities or injuries, are seriously under-recorded, especially with regard to slight inju-ries2.

In 2008, 2009 and 2010, 824 cycling accidents involving injury were recorded in the Brussels-Capital Region. These three years were chosen because contra-flows were rolled out across the 19 municipalities making up the region in 2008. Of these 824 accidents, 433 took place on a road section between intersections and 391 at an intersection.

These accidents were mapped using the ArcGIS Online geolocation tool (in the absence, at this point in the study, of a geolocation tool based on the Urbis data). The location of most of the accidents at an intersection was verified manu-ally. For 13% of the accidents on a road section no house number was given, which makes it impossible to identify the precise loca-tion. These accidents were assumed to have occurred in the middle of the road segment.

2.1.3. Selection of the accidents to be analysed

The location of the accidents was identified using the ArcGIS projection system (WGS 84 projection). The map of the accidents was then imported into the Belgian Lambert 72 projec-tion system, used for the URBIS data (which

2 - Methodology

1. The URBIS data are cartographic data generated by the Brussels Regional Informatics Centre (CIRB/CIBG). The “UrbAdm_sa” vector layer contains the centre line of all roadways in the Brussels-Capital Region.

2. Accidents with injury, and especially those involving vulnerable road users, are by no means all identified in the list compiled on the basis of the accident analysis forms:, the police are not called out to every accident with injury, especially where the cyclist is the only person involved, and the police do not always fill in an accident analysis form in addition to the accident report.

methodology11

had been used to map the contra-flows). Due to this change of reference system, these points may not be perfectly positioned on the correct street segment of the URBIS network. It was thus necessary to take account of this imprecision when selecting the accidents. For this, the selection of accidents located on a contra-flow segment was extended to include those located less than 10 metres from a contra-flow segment (using the “select by location” tool of ArcGIS). Nonetheless, some accidents whose location is out by more than 10 m may not have been selected, while they should have been. On the other hand, those that were selected in error (because they were less than 10 m from a contra-flow without hav-ing occurred there) were removed during the analysis.

Mapping the accidents involving cyclists from 2008 to 2010 shows that 222 accidents (out of a total of 824) occurred on a contra-flow or at an intersection with a contra-flow. A previous study conducted in 2009 by the Belgian Road Safety Institute (IBSR/BIVV) (Dupriez, 2009) showed that 16 accidents (out of a total of 168) took place on a contra-flow or at an intersec-tion with a contra-flow in 2005, 2006 and 2007 in the municipalities of Etterbeek, Evere, Saint-Josse-Ten-Noode/Sint-Joost-ten-Noode, Schaer-beek/Schaarbeek, Woluwe-Saint-Lambert/Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe and Woluwe-Saint-Pierre/Sint-Pieters-Woluwe. These accidents were added to the analysis, as in these six municipalities contra-flows were generalised in 2005.

The study thus deals with 238 accidents that occurred on a contra-flow or at an intersection with a contra-flow. Four of the case files were

not available for consultation; 234 accidents were therefore analysed.

2.2. Analysis of the acci-dents

The accidents were reconstructed on the basis of the official accident reports. The files were consulted in the police precincts of Brussels-Ixelles/Brussel-Elsene, Brussels-Midi/Brussel-Zuid, Polbruno, and Uccle-Auderghem-Watermael-Boitsfort/Ukkel-Oudergem-Water-maal-Bosvoorde and at the Brussels Police Prosecutor’s office. The official report numbers, not included in the database provided by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, were provided by the Police Operational Information Directorate of the Federal Police.

Each file was then studied using an analysis chart that includes data on the locations, the road users, the sequence of events in the acci-dent (divided into four phases3) and several factors judged to contribute to an accident (see the analysis charts in the Annex). Field visits were then made to determine the extent to which the road layout could have played a role in the accident. In the vast majority of cases, the road layout had not changed between the time of the accident and that of the analysis. Where it had changed, it was still possible to reconstruct the road layout at the time of the accident relatively accurately, in particular using aerial photographs.

Following the analysis, cases considered simi-lar were grouped together on the basis of the sequence of events in the accident to obtain several accident profiles.

3. Namely, the driving situation, the accident situation, the emergency situation and the collision situation. This sequential analysis of the accidents follows that proposed by INRETS (French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research) (Brenac et al., 2003).

fiche no 1

3.1. Distribution and use of contra-flows

3.1.1. One in four streets in the Brussels-Capital Region is a contra-flow

12

3 - Initial observations

Figure 4 - One-way streets in the Brussels-Capital Region (2009).

Two-way

One-way with contra-flow

One-way

Network accessible to cyclists

Kilometers

Mapping the one-way streets shows that there are 3,116 sections of one-way street with cyclist contra-flow out of a total of 12,424 road sections accessible to cyclists in the Brussels-Capital Region, or 25% of the roads. The total length of contra-flows is 404.1 linear km, or 24% of the 1,654 km of roadways accessible to cyclists. There are 722 sections of one-way

street without contra-flow cycling, making a total of 88.9 km.

The breakdown of contra-flows by hierarchical level of road, as defined in the Iris 2 regional mobility plan 2015-2020 (see Figure 7), is as follows:

initial observations13

4. Intersections were categorised according to the highest hierarchical level of road present. We took into account only those accessible to cyclists.

5. The hierarchical level of the road is not specified for all segments on the map file provided by Brussels Mobility.

6. These data come from 381 individual 20-minute counts, carried out during the rush hour by cyclist counters at locations chosen by them during a specified one-week period. While these data have no scientific value, the large number of individual counts provides orders of magnitude which are useful for the purposes of this analysis. Campaign site: www.provelo.org/fr/rd/etudes/campagne-cyclistes-comptent

Hierarchy

Tota

l num

ber

of

roa

d s

ec-

tion

s

Num

ber

of

contr

a-fl

ow s

ec-

tion

s

Perc

enta

ge

of

contr

a-fl

ow

sect

ions

in t

his

ca

tegor

y (%

)

Tota

l num

ber

of

inte

rsec

-ti

ons

4

Num

ber

of

in-

ters

ecti

ons

wit

h

at

least

one

contr

a-fl

ow

Perc

enta

ge

of

inte

rsec

tion

s w

ith a

t le

ast

on

e co

ntr

a-fl

ow

in t

his

cate

gor

y (%

)

Local network 8463 2829 33,4 4073 2057 50,5

Local collector road

1298 190 14,6 1052 590 56,1

Primary collec-tor road

1703 78 4,6 1475 645 43,7

Primary net-work

938 16 1,7 896 305 34

Total 124025 3113 25,1 7496 3597 48

Almost 91% of contra-flows are on the local network, 6% on local collector roads, 2.5% on primary collector roads, and 0.5% on the pri-mary network.

At 48% of all intersections in the region, at least one of the roads is a contra-flow; 50.5% of intersections on the local network include at least one contra-flow, compared with 56% on local collector roads, 44% on primary collector roads, and 34% on the primary network.

Thus contra-flows constitute a major part of the Brussels cycling network and contribute to a high permeability of cyclists throughout the city.

3.1.2. Over 4 in 10 cyclists on contra-flows travel against the traffic

The recent series of cyclist counts organised by Provelo, “Cyclists count”6, provided some infor-mation on the use of contra-flows by cyclists.

Of the 212 cyclist counts conducted on the local road network (106 different sites), 87 of them on contra-flows (43 different sites), the average number of cyclists counted was greater on contra-flows than on two-way or one-way streets: approximately 10 cyclists per site (observed over 20 minutes) compared with approximately 8 on the other roads.

Figure 5 - Road hierarchy as defined in the Iris 2 plan

These counts also show that 56% of cyclists travelling on contra-flow sections of the local road network are travelling with the traffic and 44% against it.

Although this data should be treated with cau-tion, it is the only information available in such detail, and provides at least orders of magni-tude on use of the road network by cyclists.

3.2. General characteris-tics of accidents on contra-flows

3.2.1. What proportion of accidents occurred on a contra-flow?

1414initial observations

Figure 6 - Breakdown of cycling accidents in the Brussels-Capital Region by type of road (with or without a contra-flow) and by direction of travel of the cyclist

Cyclist riding against the tra�c on the contra-�ow?

Cyclist on the contra-�ow?

presence of one of the 2 users on the contra-�ow?

992 accidents*

presence of a contra-�ow?No contra-�ow in the vicinity

758

No user on the contra-�ow

60

Other vehicle on the contra-�ow

48

79Cyclist riding with

the tra�c on the contra-�ow

Cyclist riding against the tra�c

on the contra-�ow

47

no

no

no

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

* 824 accidents out of the 19 municipalities (years 2008 to 2010) + 168 accidents out of 6 municipalities (years 2005 to 2007) = 992 accidents.

Of the 992 cycling accidents analysed, 126, or 12.7%, involved a cyclist travelling on a contra-flow, entering an intersection from a con-tra-flow, or crossing an intersection towards a contra-flow. Accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow accounted for 47 cases out of 992, or 4.7% of all accidents involving cyclists.

In 48 accidents the other vehicle was on the contra-flow section, and in 60 cases none of the users involved was coming from or head-ing towards the contra-flow section.

A concentration of cycling accidents was observed on the primary network and on the central boulevards.

initial observations15

Figure 7 - Cycling accidents in the Brussels-Capital Region in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and hierarchy of road-ways.

related to the contra-flow (n=115)

not related to the contra-flow (n=107)

not on a contra-flow

motorway/trunk/arterial road

primary collector road

local collector road

local access road kilometers

3.2.2. What is the breakdown of accidents involving a cyclist on a contra-flow between accidents at intersections and accidents on road sections?

As can be seen in Figure 8, of the 992 acci-

dents involving a cyclist, 47.8% occurred at an intersection. Of the 126 accidents involving a cyclist travelling on a contra-flow, entering an intersection from a contra-flow or enter-ing a contra-flow, a similar proportion (48.7%) occurred at an intersection.


Figure 8 - Breakdown of cycling accidents in the Brussels-Capital Region between those at or not at an intersection, those with or without a contra-flow in the vicinity, and the direction of travel of the cyclist.

Figure 9 shows that of the 47 accidents involv-ing a cyclist travelling against the traffic, 31 (66%) occurred at an intersection. In the case of cyclists travelling with the traffic, accidents at intersections were, at 39.7%, below the overall average. The danger is therefore greater when the cyclist is travelling with the traffic on a road section or against the traffic at an inter-section.

Thus the risk of accident for a cyclist travelling with the traffic must not be underestimated, and where necessary measures must be taken to reduce it. Intersections at the exit from a contra-flow should also be laid out in such a way as to reduce traffic speeds and increase mutual visibility. Road users should also be encouraged to take extra care when approach-ing an intersection with a contra-flow.

416

3131

16

48

450

at an intersection without a contra-�ow or other vehicle on contra-�ow (n=48)

Section n=514 Intersection n=478

on a section – not on a contra-�ow

at an intersection with a contra-�ow- cyclist with the tra�c

at an intersection with a contra-�ow - cyclist against the tra�c

on a section – on a contra-�ow - cyclist with the tra�c

on a section – on a contra-�ow - cyclist against the tra�c

3.2.3. Are contra-flows more dangerous than the rest of the road network?

On a road section

Nearly 91% of contra-flows are on the local network. They should therefore be compared primarily with this type of road. Contra-flows account for 32.9% of the total length of the local network, and had 30.5% of the accidents that occurred on the local network.

The rest of the contra-flows are distributed as follows: 6% on local collector roads, 2.5% on primary collector roads, and 0.5% on the pri-mary network.

When the number of accidents involving cyclists on a road section is divided by the number of kilometres of each category of road, the follow-ing results are obtained (see Figure 10):

On a road section, the level of danger for a cyclist travelling on the local network is thus 5 to 6 times less per km travelled than on the primary network, and 3 to 4 times less than on a primary collector road. On the local network, contra-flow road sections even appear to give rise to fewer accidents per km of road than other roads (two-way or “ordinary” one-way). On the rest of the road network, the number of cycling accidents on a section is too small to be able to make the same distinction between roads with and without contra-flows.


Figure 9 - Comparison of the number of cycling accidents at an intersection and on a road section

480 31

31

51248

16

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

total

ON A ROAD SECTION

AT AN INTERSECTION

cyclist on a contra-�ow against the tra�c

cyclist on a contra-�ow travelling with the tra�c

average


Figure 10 - Number of cycling accidents on a road section per 100 km of road (Brussels-Capital Region, 2008 to 2010, N=824).

24,8

15,613,8

4,4 3,9

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

Primary Intercollector

Local roadway

not contra-�ow

Local roadway

contra-�ow

average

Localcollector

At an intersection

The breakdown of accidents by hierarchical level of intersection is as follows:

PrimaryPrimary collec-

torLocal collector Local

% of intersections 12 19,7 14 54,3

Of which, % of intersections with at least one contra-flow

34 44 56 50,5

% of cycling accidents 37,5 30,6 17,2 14,7

Of which, cycling accidents related to the contra-flow(%)

1,3 6,1 1,8 5,1

Figure 11 - Number of cycling accidents at an intersection by hierarchical level.

The proportion of cycling accidents occurring at an intersection on the primary network (37.5% of all accidents) is three times the pro-portion of intersections located on the primary network (12% of all intersections). This table also shows that the proportion of accidents

related to the contra-flow is greater at inter-sections on primary collectors. Intersections on primary collectors and the primary network with a contra-flow must therefore be carefully designed..

19

Road sections and intersections

Figure 12 shows that on the primary network, primary collectors and local collectors there are more cycling accidents at intersections than on road sections. Conversely, on the local road network, more accidents take place on a road section.It should be noted, however, that the Ministry of the Brussels-Capital Region classifies intersec-tions according to the highest hierarchical level of road present. As a result the higher hierarchi-cal levels are somewhat over-represented.

The risk per km of road can be found by dividing the number of accidents that occurred on each of the categories of the network (road section

+ intersection) by the linear distance of this cat-egory. Figure 13 shows that the risk of accident per km of roadway is over 15 times greater on a road section or intersection on the primary net-work than on a road section or intersection on the local network. This means that improving safety by redesigning 1 km of the primary network will have a significantly greater effect on the road safety of cyclists than redesigning 1 km of the local network.

The accident rate on local collector roads is very similar to that on primary collector roads, even though local collector roads are supposed to resemble local roads more closely than primary collector roads (see the Regional Development Plan).

initial observations

Figure 12 - Number of cycling accidents at an intersection or on a road section by hierarchi-cal level (Brussels-Capital Region, 2008-2010, N=824).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Road

Sec

tion

Inte

rsec

tion

PrimaryPrimarycollector Local

# a

ccid

ents

156 km 231 km 155 km 1108 km

not related to a contra-�ow

related to a contra-�ow - cyclist travelling against the tra�c

related to a contra-�ow - cyclist travelling with the tra�c

Road

Sec

tion

Road

Sec

tion

Road

Sec

tion

Inte

rsec

tion

Inte

rsec

tion

Inte

rsec

tion

Localcollector

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

156 km 231 km 155 km 1108 km

Accidents not related to a contra-�ow

Accidents related to a contra-�ow and with cyclist going with the tra�c

Accidents related to a contra-�ow and with cyclist going against the tra�c

average

Num

ber o

f acc

iden

ts p

er 1

00 k

m o

f roa

d an

d pe

r yea

r

LocalPrimary Primarycollector

Localcollector

Figure 13 - Relative risk of a cycling accident (road section or intersection) per 100 km of road by hierarchical level (Brussels-Capital Region, 2008-2010, N=824).

The average risk for a cyclist (the concept of "risk exposure") can be calculated by dividing the number of accidents per km of road by the average number of cyclists who use that type of road. The only data available on the number of cyclists by hierarchical level of road

come from the "Cyclists count" data collected by Provelo in 20127. These figures should be treated with caution, but they nonetheless reveal a general trend. The results obtained by Provelo are as follows :


7. www.provelo.org/fr/rd/etudes/campagne-cyclistes-comptent.

Hierarchical level of the road

Primary network

Primary col-lector

Local collector Local network

# cyclists on average/20 min. 20 15 13 6

Figure 14 : Use by cyclists by hierarchical level of roadways (Source: Provelo).

On the basis of the above cyclist counts, Fig-ure 15 shows that the accident risk per km travelled on the local road network is below the average for the entire road network (=1), while the accident risk on other road types is above average.

The accident risk for a cyclist per km travelled is approximately 4 times greater on the pri-mary network and twice as high on primary collector or local collector roads as on the local network.

The counts appear to show that there are more cyclists on contra-flow sections than on other sections of the local network. If these counts are confirmed, they would tend to show that the risk for a cyclist per km travelled is less on a contra-flow section of the local network than on other sections of the local network.

Overall

It is clear that the hierarchical level of the road section or intersection is a more decisive risk factor for bike accidents than the introduction of contra-flow cycling on one-way streets. On the local network, where most contra-flows are found, the number of cycling accidents per km is lower on contra-flows than on other roads.

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

156 km 231 km 155 km 1108 km

Accidents not related to a contra-�ow

Accidents related to a contra-�ow

average

Relativ

e ris

k of

acc

iden

t per

km

trav

elle

d by

bik

e

LocalPrimary Primarycollector

Localcollector

Figure 15 - Relative risk of accident per km travelled by bike (Brussels-Capital Region, 2008-2010, N=824, Provelo cyclist counts).


8. Severity rate = number of deaths and serious injuries divided by the total number of deaths and injuries.9. In particular: crossing the road.

3.2.4. Are there more accidents when cyclists travel against the traffic?

The cyclist was travelling against the traffic in 47 of the 126 accidents on a contra-flow road section, or 37% of cases, and with the traffic in 55% of cases. In 8% of cases the cyclist was either making a different manoeuvre (e.g. cross-ing the road) or the direction of travel was not recorded.

These figures can be compared with the Prov-elo cyclist counts, which show that on average 44% of cyclists on a contra-flow are travelling against the traffic and 56% with the traffic.

Thus, proportionally there are no more acci-dents involving a cyclist travelling against the

traffic than with the traffic, or even slightly fewer.

3.2.5. Are accidents involving cyclists travelling against the traffic on contra-flows serious?

The 992 accidents involving a cyclist resulted in 1,042 deaths or injuries, including two deaths and 52 serious injuries, or a severity rate8 of 5.2%. The 126 accidents involving a cyclist trav-elling on a contra-flow road section, entering an intersection from a contra-flow or crossing an intersection towards a contra-flow resulted in 137 injuries, including 10 serious injuries, and no fatalities, or a severity rate of 7.3%.

The severity rates can be broken down by direction of travel as follows:

# injuries # serious injuries Severity rate (%)

On a contra-flow - cyclist travelling against the traffic

52 2 3,8

On a contra-flow - cyclist travelling with the traffic

75 6 8,0

On a contra-flow – other manoeu-vre or unknown9 10 2 20

Figure 16 - Severity of cycling accidents on contra-flows.

Thus in general the consequences of accidents involving a cyclist are less serious when the cyclist is travelling against the traffic than when travelling with the traffic or making another manoeuvre.

However, the rather low number of serious injuries does not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn, regardless of the direction of travel of the cyclist.

3.2.6. Is the breakdown of cycling accidents on contra-flows by age and gender significant?

78% of cyclists involved in accidents going against the traffic on a contra-flow are male. This is explained in part by the greater propor-

tion of men travelling by bike (approximately 69%, according to the Provelo cyclist counts in 2008, 2009 and 2010). Proportionally more male cyclists are also accident victims (76% of the cyclists having an accident in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were male).

Male adolescents and men in the 60-69 age range seem to be involved more often than the average in an accident going against the traf-fic on a contra-flow. The low number of cases, however, does not allow a formal conclusion to be drawn.

fiche no 122

initial observations

3.2.7. Is the breakdown of cycling accidents on a contra-flow by time significant?

The time distribution of accidents involving cyclists going against the traffic on contra-flows follows the trend for all cycling acci-dents. There are more accidents overall during the summer months, with a dip during the school holiday period. The more marked vari-ations are due to the low number of accidents taken into account.

The distribution over the course of the day of accidents involving cyclists going against the traffic on contra-flows also follows the same trend as all cycling accidents, namely peaks during the morning, noon and evening rush hours. Six accidents took place at night and two at dawn/dusk. Two accidents occurred in rainy weather. Thus 10 accidents out of 47 took place under conditions of reduced vis-ibility.

Figure 17 - Breakdown by month of accidents involving cyclists on a contra-flow going against the traffic and of all cycling accidents (2008, 2009 and 2010).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Accidents involving cyclists going against the tra�c on a contra-�ow

Cycling accidents (2008, 2009, 2010)

Num

ber

of

acci

den

ts invo

lvin

g c

yclis

ts g

oin

g

agai

nst

the

tra�

c on a

contr

a-�

ow

Num

ber

of

cycl

ing a

ccid

ents

(2

00

8,

20

09

, 2

01

0)

fiche no 12323

TyPICAl ACCIdeNT 1: FAIluRe TO GIve WAy (yIeld) (ON The PART OF ONe OR OTheR OF The TWO ROAd uSeRS)

• In 14 cases, the two road users were travelling on intersecting roads and one of the two failed to give way (yield) to the other. In 7 accidents the cyclist failed to give way to the other vehicle, 6 times at an intersection with priority for traffic coming from the right and once at an intersection with a give-way sign (B1). The other road user failed to give way six times at an intersection with priority for traffic coming from the right and once at an intersection with a give way sign (B1). At the six intersections with priority for traffic coming from the right, the required road signs (B17 announcing an intersection with priority for traffic coming from the right + M9 announcing a cy-clist contra-flow on the intersecting street) were not present. In addition, at one of these intersec-tions, the priority-from-the-right rule should not have been applicable, as the contra-flow exited onto a regional priority road. The signage has since been changed.

Despite the low number of accidents involv-ing cyclists travelling on, entering or leaving a contra-flow road section, these accidents have been analysed in order to understand the sequence of events. The aim is to determine whether the road layout could have contrib-uted to their occurrence and, if so, to propose recommendations for improved road layouts with a view to further reducing the accident risk.

4.1. Accidents at an inter-section

In 31 accidents out of 110, the cyclist was entering or leaving a contra-flow against the traffic. Two thirds of the accidents involved a road user travelling on a road intersecting that taken by the cyclist, and only one fifth of the accidents involved an oncoming vehicle turn-ing into an intersecting road.

4 - Accident profiles

Figure 18 - Number of cycling accidents at an intersection where at least one road user was coming from or heading towards the contra-flow road section.

21

6

4

3179

Cyclist going wiht the tra�c

Cyclist going against the tra�c

intersecting roads

same road

special cases

fiche no 124

Recommendations

• Mark a bicycle symbol at the exit of contra-flows to make drivers aware of the presence of cyclists when cyclists have priority.

• Lay out intersections so as to reduce traffic speeds and increase mutual visibility.

• At intersections between a local road and a more major road, install give way (yield) signs (B1) for cyclists travelling against the traffic (highly visible sign and road marking).

• Increase cyclists’ awareness of the rules of priority and encourage them to take extra care when approaching intersections, even if they have right of way.

• Install the B17 sign (announcing an intersec-tion with priority for traffic coming from the right) + M9 sign (announcing a cyclist con-tra-flow on the intersecting street) where it is legally required.

Figure 19 - Accident sketches (the vehicle is rep-resented in red and the cyclist in green).

Figure 20 - Marking at the exit of contra-flows at priority-to-the-right intersections (IBSR 2006).

Figure 21 - Accident at the intersection of Rue du Cornet/Hoornstraat and Avenue d’Auderghem/Oudergemselaan. The give way (yield) sign is not sufficiently visible to cyclists and there are no give way road markings, even though the contra-flow exits onto a very busy road.

24accident profiles

fiche no 125

TyPICAl ACCIdeNT 2: POOR ROAd POSITIONING OF The ROAd uSeRS INvOlved

• Seven accidents took place between road users travelling on intersecting roads when one of them was poorly positioned at the approach to the intersection. In 3 cases, the vehicle turning left cut the corner and collided with the arriving cyclist.In 3 cases, the cyclist was travelling either in the centre or on the left side of the road at the approach to the intersection. The vehicle could not avoid the cyclist when turning.In one case, the cyclist was travelling on the left side of the road and collided head-on with the vehicle when turning.

Figure 22 - Accident sketches (the vehicle is represented in red and the cyclist in green), independently of the priority rules at the intersection.

Recommendations

• Add bicycle symbol road markings to make drivers aware of the presence of cyclists and to indicate to the cyclist where he should be positioned.

• If necessary, provide channelising traffic islands (either physical islands or painted ghost islands) at the entrances and exits of contra-flows in order to channel traffic flows. They should be designed in such a way as not to present a risk to motorcyclists.

• Eliminate parking at the approach to inter-sections to allow cyclists to position them-selves more to the right, especially in the case of downhill contra-flow sections. The design of kerb build-outs (curb extensions) at intersections needs to be adapted to take account of the path followed by cyclists.

•

Figure 23 - Accident at the intersection of Rue Gray/Graystraat and Rue du Serpentin/Spiraal-buisstraat: the bicycle symbol road markings are not sufficient to encourage vehicles to keep to the right.

25accident profiles

fiche no 126

TyPICAl ACCIdeNT 3: vehICle TuRNING, CuTTING ACROSS The PATh OF AN ONCOMING CyClIST

• Six accidents involved a vehicle and a cyclist travelling on the same road, but in opposite direc-tions. In 5 of these accidents, the vehicle turned left into a perpendicular road and cut across the path of the oncoming cyclist. In one case, the cyclist was travelling against the traffic on the service road and was struck by a vehicle turning right. In 4 accidents, the drivers stated that they did not see the cyclist coming, although there was nothing to mask visibility and it was daytime in 3 cases.

Figure 24 - Accident sketch (the vehicle is repre-sented in red and the cyclist in green).

Recommendations

• At intersections with traffic lights (two cas-es), programme conflict-free phase changes.

• Add bicycle symbol road markings to make drivers aware of the presence of cyclists.

• Remind cyclists of the importance of making themselves visible.

Figure 25 - Accident at the intersection of Chaus-sée de Gand/Gentse Steenweg and Rue de l’Ecole/Schoolstraat: the vehicle turns left and collides with the cyclist, who is going straight on. Red surfacing could be applied to the cycle lane to mark the point of conflict.

Figure 26 - Accident at the intersection of the Avenue des Croix du Feu/Vuurkruisenlaan and Avenue de l’Araucaria/Araucarialaan: the phas-ing of the traffic lights on the service road could be different from those on the main road to pre-vent conflicts between road users who are turn-ing and those who are going straight on.

• 4 special cases: A vehicle travelling in reverse collided with a cyclist who was entering the contra-flow; a tram turned and a cyclist was unable to brake; a pedestrian was crossing at a pedestrian crossing and a cyclist was unable to avoid him; a cyclist fell off his bike (no other vehicle involved).

26accident profiles

fiche no 127

4.2. Accidents on a road section

In 16 accidents out of 64, the cyclist was trav-elling against the traffic on the contra-flow. Of

these 16 accidents, over one third were related to parked vehicles. Another third of the acci-dents involved a pedestrian crossing the street.

Figure 27 : Number of cycling accidents on a contra-flow road section.

TyPICAl ACCIdeNT 4: PARked vehICleS PullING OuT

• Six accidents involved vehicles that were pulling out either from a vehicular access located on the left of the roadway10 (4 cases), or from a longitudinal parking bay located on the left of the roadway (2 cases). In 4 accidents out of 6, other parked vehicles masked the view of the drivers.

Figure 28 - Accident sketch (the vehicle is represented in red and the cyclist in green)

In half of the cases, there was a segregated cycle track, a cycle lane, or a series of bicycle symbol road markings at the scene of the accident. In every case except one, masked visibility prevented the driver from seeing the cyclist arriving against the traffic.

10. Directions are always indicated by reference to the general traffic direction.

48 16

5

64

1

Cyclist going with the tra�c

Cyclist going against

the tra�c

special cases

related to vehicles going with the

tra�c

parking-related

pedestrian-related

27accident profiles

fiche no 128

Recommendations

• As far as possible, avoid masked visibility on either side of major vehicular accesses.

• Add a cycle track or cycle lane, or at least appropriate road markings, at the exit from major vehicular accesses.

• Remind drivers of the obligation to use di-rectional indicator lights when leaving a parking space.

• Raise awareness among cyclists of the need to keep a safe distance from parked vehi-cles, especially when they conceal a vehicu-lar access.

Figure 29 - Accident on Avenue Ducpétiaux/Ducpétiauxlaan at the exit from the petrol sta-tion. The bottle banks prevent drivers pulling out from the petrol station from seeing approaching cyclists, but the coloured cycle lane draws their attention.

ICAl ACCIdeNT 5: PedeSTRIAN CROSSING

• In 5 cases, the accident occurred with pedestrians who were crossing the road during the daytime under normal weather conditions. Four of these pedestrians were coming from the cyclist’s right; one was coming from the left and had already crossed part of the road. In all cases, the pedestrian was crossing between parked vehicles, which masked the view of both road users. In 4 of the 5 cases, there were no road markings to draw attention to the presence of cyclists travelling against the traffic. One of the pedestrians was seriously injured.

Figure 30 - Accident sketch (the pedestrian is represented in blue and the cyclist in green).

By comparison, only 3 accidents out of 64 involved a cyclist travelling with the traffic and a pedestrian crossing the road.

Recommandations

• Where there are long unbroken longitudinal parking lanes, create suggested pedestrian crossing points with good mutual visibility in the form of a kerb build-out (curb exten-sion) at least 5 metres long, with a dropped kerb, but not necessarily with pedestrian crossing (crosswalk) markings. The pedes-trian is invited to cross at this safer location.

• Make pedestrians aware of the presence of cyclists travelling in both directions.

• Make cyclists aware of the fact that they are silent and that pedestrians, relying on hearing when crossing, do not hear them coming.

28accident profiles

29fiche no 1

TyPICAl ACCIdeNT 6: ONCOMING vehICle

• Four accidents involved oncoming vehicles. The narrowness of the road was clearly a factor in two of the accidents, aggravated by difficult weather conditions (snow) in one case. In another case, an illegally parked vehicle masked visibility.

Figure 31 - Accident sketch (the vehicle is repre-sented in red and the cyclist in green).

Recommendations

• Ensure that very busy contra-flows, with heavy flows of either cyclists or motor vehi-cles, are sufficiently wide to allow road us-ers to pass each other comfortably (cf. point 5, Discussion).

• Physically prevent illegal parking, which re-duces the width of the roadway and gives rise to avoidance manoeuvres. If deliveries take place frequently, provide sufficiently wide parking bays reserved for deliveries.

• Raise awareness among cyclists of the need to take extra care when there is snow or black ice.

Figure 32 : Accident on Rue de la Tulipe/Tulip-straat: it is not easy for a cyclist and a vehicle to pass on this contra-flow. N.B.: the two parking lanes reduce the available road width to less than 4 m, which hinders access for emergency services.

Figure 33 : Accident on Rue Traversière/Dwar-sstraat: illegal parking obliges drivers to drive on the cycle lane (Source: maps.google.be).

• Special case: One accident took place with a vehicle parked in the wrong direction (against the flow of the traffic), the driver of which opened the door and struck a cyclist travelling against the traffic.

29accident profiles

30fiche no 1

30 5 - Points for discussion

5.1. Does specific cycling infrastructure ensure safety?

Figure 34 - Type of cycling infrastructure present when an accident at an intersection involves a cyclist travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow.

In two thirds of the accidents at an intersection specific cycling infrastructure was present: either bicycle symbol road markings at the intersection only, or an advisory or compul-sory cycle lane or a segregated cycle track all along the road section on which the cyclist was travelling. It would therefore seem that the

presence of cycling infrastructure is not always enough to make motorists aware of the pres-ence of cyclists riding against the traffic, but it is difficult to draw more detailed conclusions without being able to compare the accident sites with a representative sample of intersec-tions with contra-flows.

11

11

2

6

1

At an intersection

compulsory cycle lane

bicycle symbols at intersection only

advisory cycle lane

no speci�c infrastructure

separate cycling lane

Figure 35 - Type of cycling infrastructure at the time of an accident on a road section involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow.

9

3

3

1

On a road section

compulsory cycle lane

advisory cycle lane

no speci�c infrastructure

separate cycling lane

31fiche no 1

In over half of accidents on a road section, there was no specific cycling infrastructure at the accident site.

There were too few accidents where specific cycling infrastructure was present to draw con-clusions on whether or not they are necessary.

5.2. What are the possi-ble types of conflict on a contra-flow?

Some people cite the surprise at seeing a cyclist riding against the traffic as a reason for considering contra-flows to be dangerous. This situation occurs on a road section when the cyclist and the motorist are travelling in opposite directions, and at an intersection when either the vehicle or the cyclist enters the contra-flow section.

There were four accidents on a road section in which the cyclist and the motorist were travel-ling in opposite directions, eight accidents at the entrance (for motor traffic) to a contra-flow section, and one at the exit (for motor traf-fic) from a contra-flow section. Thus, count-ing accidents on a road section and those at an intersection, only 13 accidents out of 47 involved a cyclist riding against the traffic on a contra-flow coming face to face with a vehicle. Some motorists find this surprising, as they consider this situation to be inherently unsafe.

Despite the surprise effect this situation can cause, it leads to few accidents. However, conflicts can and do occur. They are more or less problematic depending on the distances between the road users, the type of road users, and the frequency with which they meet.

Figure 36 - Situations in which a cyclist and a motorist come face to face.

31points for discussion

32fiche no 1

Figure 37 - Possible conflicts11 between vehicles and cyclists travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow

11. Conflict = "A serious incompatibility between two or more … interests" (Oxford Dictionaries online), in this case right of way!

Passive interaction: no need to slow down

Sufficient distance/room for manoeuvre between

road users

No need for the cyclist or the vehicle to slow down compared to a situation without interac-

tion

Neither problematic nor awkward

SPEC

IAL

CA

RE

TO

BE

GIV

EN T

O R

OA

D L

AYO

UT,

ESP

ECIA

LLY A

T T

HE

APP

RO

AC

H T

O A

N I

NT

ERSE

CT

ION

Active interaction: need to slow down in order to pass

or manoeuvre

Barely sufficient distance/room for manoeuvre between road users

Wide vehicles only

Uncommon situation


Common situ-ation

Not problematic but awk-ward

All vehicles

Uncommon situation


Common situ-ation

Not problematic but awk-ward

Minor to major conflict: need to stop when passing or turning at an intersec-

tion

Distances between road users are too small.

Wide vehicles only

Uncommon situation

(Slightly) problematic and (slightly) awkward

Common situ-ation

(Highly) problematic and awkward

All vehicles

Uncommon situation

(Slightly) problematic and awkward

Common situ-ation

(Highly) problematic and very awkward

Major conflict: need to stop when passing or turning at an intersection, and one of the two road users must

pull off the roadway.

Distances between road users are too small.

Wide vehicles only

Uncommon situation

(Slightly) problematic and awkward for the cyclist

Common situ-ation

(Highly) problematic and very awkward for the cyclist

All vehicles

Uncommon situation

Problematic and awkward for the cyclist

Common situ-ation

Highly problematic and very awkward for the cyclist


33fiche no 1


The conflicts arising on contra-flows should be studied so that they can be resolved. Is it not possible to reduce speeds, eliminate parking, or consider better sharing of the public space (e.g. home zones)?

5.3. Are narrow contra-flows more hazardous?

To answer this question, the width of contra-flows between kerbs was measured using the 2012 URBIS data12. A sample of 100 road

segments was taken at random. The position of parking (on the left, on the right, on both sides) and the available road width (width between kerbs minus 2 m per parking lane) were then taken into account for each seg-ment. The widths of contra-flows where an accident had occurred were also measured (where available).

12. Where the width between kerbs varied too much along a road segment, it was not possible to calculate it automatically. It is therefore not available for all road segments.

13. This value corresponds to the minimum available road width on a transit roadway with parking on one side (IBSR, 2006).

Figure 38 shows that the available road width in 43% of contra-flows is less than 3.5 m13 (and in almost half of these it is less than 3 m). As most contra-flows are local access streets, narrower available road widths are also acceptable.

Tables showing the number of cycling acci-dents broken down by road width and position of parking are available in the annex.

Figure 38 - Number of contra-flow road segments broken down by width and position of parking.

No parkingStaggered parking

Parking on the left

Parking on the right

Parking on both sidesNo parking

Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left


Parking on both sides

0 segment 1 segment 2 segment 1 segment 16 segment 20

0 segment 1 segment 2 segment 0 segment 20 segment 23

Average 2 segment 12 segment 10 segment 1 segment 9 segment 34

Wide 1 segment 5 segment 5 segment 0 segment 12 segment 23

3 19 19 2 57 100

≤ 3

m

Narrow

3,1

à 3

,5 m

3,6

à 4

,5 m

> 4

,5 m

34fiche no 1

Figure 39 shows that there are proportionally more accidents on contra-flows with a width greater than 4.5 m, especially when the cyclist is travelling with the traffic.

Only one third of accidents involving cyclists going against the traffic occurred on a contra-flow with an available road width of less than 3.5 m.

The figures used are too low for valid conclu-sions to be drawn, but it would seem that narrow roads are not more problematic than wider roads.

We can nevertheless make the following com-ment: travelling against the traffic on a narrow contra-flow, a cyclist who leaves a buffer zone between himself and vehicles parked on his right can easily find himself in the centre of the road. If this positioning is not corrected when he reaches an intersection, he runs a greater risk, especially with regard to vehicles turning and not realising that there is a cyclist in the middle of the road. This risk is increased if the road slopes downhill and the cyclist is travel-ling at high speed.

Recommendations

• Mark the correct positioning of the cyclist at the approach to an intersection with chev-rons and bicycle symbols.

• Eliminate parking on the left of the road

in the vicinity of intersections to allow the cyclist to keep right as he approaches the intersection. The design of kerb build-outs (curb extensions) should therefore take ac-count of the path followed by cyclists, while avoiding any adverse impact on the safety and mobility of pedestrians.

• Avoid having an available road width of less than 3.5 m on roads with very dense cyclist or motor vehicle traffic. If necessary, elimi-nate a parking lane.

•

Figure 39 - Breakdown of cycling accidents on a contra-flow by road width

Figure 40 - Rue Jacques de Lalaing/Jacques de Lalaingstraat: parking has been prohibited for a distance of 14 metres at the approach to the intersection. This allows cyclists to position them-selves better when approaching the intersection and to have good visibility of the traffic coming from the intersecting road.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very narrow< 3 m

Narrow3 - 3,5 m

Average3,51 - 4,5 m

Wide> 4,5 m

Sample of road segments

Number of accidents - cyclist against the tra�c (n = 36)

Number of accidents - cyclist with the tra�c (n = 58)


7 4 13 13

12 9 14 23

35fiche no 1

5.4. Does the positioning of parking on the right or the left have an impact on cyclist safety?

Figure 41 shows that most accidents on contra-flows take place where there is parking on both sides. This configuration is also the most common among contra-flow road segments. It also shows that there are as many contra-flow segments with parking on the left as with park-ing on the right. There are proportionally fewer accidents when parking is on the left and the cyclist is travelling with the traffic. For other configurations, the figures used are too low to allow valid conclusions to be drawn.

Our analysis identified two accidents, out of a total of 16 accidents on a road section involv-ing a cyclist riding against the traffic, where the vehicle was pulling out from a parking space (in both cases situated on the left of the road relative to the general traffic direction). There were no accidents involving the door of a parked vehicle opening.

By comparison, 10 accidents, out of a total of 48 accidents on a road section involving a cyclist travelling with the traffic, were directly related to vehicle parking: 8 involved the unex-pected opening of the door of a vehicle parked on the right, and two involved a vehicle enter-ing a parking space (situated on the right of the road).

Thus there are more accidents involving a parked vehicle (manoeuvre or door opening) when the cyclist is going with the traffic.

As a reminder, the last series of cyclist counts showed that slightly more than half of the cyclists observed on contra-flows were travel-ling with the traffic.

Given the small number of accidents analysed, it is not possible to reach a decisive conclu-sion.

Figure 41 - Breakdown of cycling accidents on a contra-flow by position of parking.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Road segment sample

Number of accidents - cyclist against the tra�c (n = 36)

Number of accidents - cyclist with the tra�c (n = 58)


Parking on the left




1 5 6 241

5 3 7 421

36fiche no 1

Parking is also a contributing factor to acci-dents, in particular where it masks visibility between a cyclist and a driver leaving a vehicu-lar access, or between a cyclist and a pedes-trian crossing between two parked vehicles.

On the basis of the accidents analysed, park-ing on the left seems to present slightly less risk for cyclists, but it encourages cyclists riding against the traffic to veer towards the centre of the road and so expose themselves to more danger when approaching intersections. Moreover, it increases the risk of an accident involving a pedestrian crossing between two vehicles without being aware of cyclists travel-ling against the traffic. Five accidents occurred between a pedestrian crossing between parked vehicles and a cyclist riding against the traffic. By comparison, there were only three accidents of this type with a cyclist going with the traffic.As for vehicles leaving a vehicular access and

being masked by parked vehicles, there were four accidents of this type involving a cyclist going against the traffic and one involving a cyclist going with the traffic.

Recommendations

Where there is parking on one side only, park-ing on the left relative to the general traffic direction seems to involve slightly less risk for cyclists. However, this recommendation is based on a small number of cycling accidents. It would be useful to extend the analysis with camera observations of the behaviour and interactions of the various road users depend-ing on the side on which vehicles are parked.

Figure 42 and 43 - Narrow contra-flow and parking on the left. The cyclist tends to keep away from the doors of the parked cars.


37fiche no 1

5.5. Can profiles of the most dangerous road types be identified?

1. When all vehicles are obliged to turn, coming into conflict with the cyclist

For example, intersections where all the branches are contra-flows, and only one of them is an exit from the intersection, would seem to be a more dangerous configuration. All vehicles coming from the contra-flow sec-tions are obliged to take the exit contra-flow section. If there is heavy traffic on these roads, the approach to the intersection can be awk-ward for cyclists.

Figure 44 - Vehicles (in red) all turning towards the cyclist (in green).

Recommendations:

• Design intersections properly so as to re-duce speeds and increase mutual visibility.

• If visibility between road users is poor and/or where the road is sufficiently wide, in-stall channelising islands to separate traffic flows and avoid points of conflict.

• In other cases, mark bicycle symbols on the road to make drivers aware of the presence of cyclists and to indicate to cyclists where they should position themselves.

2. When the Sul has a curved profileThe presence of a curve in a SUL is often cited as a reason for concern about accidents, given that visibility can be poor there and motorists tend to cut curves. However, the accident anal-ysis does not allow us to conclude that there are more accidents on a SUL with a curved profile. Nevertheless, certain measures can be taken to reduce the risk of accidents.

Figure 45 - Channelising island (the white mark-ing should be accentuated to increase its vis-ibility).


38fiche no 1

3. When the contra-flow is on a bend

The presence of a bend on a contra-flow is often cited as a reason for concern about acci-dents, given that visibility can be poor and motorists tend to cut corners. However, the accident analysis does not lead to the conclu-sion that there are more accidents on a contra-flow with a bend. Nevertheless, measures can be taken to reduce the risk of accidents.

First of all, speeds must be moderated. If necessary, the maximum authorised speed should be reduced. In general, this should be accompanied by infrastructure measures to limit speed.

Motorists must also be made aware of the pos-sible presence of cyclists travelling against the

traffic, for example by marking an advisory cycling lane with additional road markings at the bend(s) where visibility is poor. If there is enough room, contra-flow cyclists can even be physically segregated from cars in some places by constructing a raised cycle track with a vertical kerb or a reflective vibrating strip, a median strip or even, if speeds are sufficiently low, small posts.

Where necessary and possible, visibility can be improved by removing obstacles such as bushes, parking lanes, bus shelters, etc. (IBSR, 2004).

Figures 46 and 47 - Rue de l’Armistice: bicycle logos are closely spaced on the curve and a mirror has been installed allowing mutual visibility of cyclists and motorists.

Joint bus and cycle contra-flows

This analysis does not cover accidents on joint bus and cycle contra-flows, as we considered the configuration of such streets to be differ-ent from that of cyclist contra-flows. The prob-lems and solutions are not the same.

We nevertheless note that five accidents involved a cyclist travelling against the traf-fic on a joint bus and cycle contra-flow. Three of these accidents involved a vehicle travel-ling in the general direction of traffic that cut

across the path of the cyclist while turning left. Another accident involved a pedestrian crossing at a pedestrian crossing. In the fifth accident, no other road user was involved. All the accidents occurred while the cyclist was travelling downhill, but the speed of the cyclist is never mentioned in the accident reports.


39fiche no 1

s

39

6 - Conclusions

Cyclist contra-flows account for a quarter of the road network in the Brussels-Capital Region and are mainly located on local access roads. Accidents involving a cyclist going against the traffic on a contra-flow, or entering or leaving a contra-flow at an intersection, account for less than 5% of all cycling accidents. This is not therefore a major safety issue.

Analysis of 992 accidents did not reveal an increased risk of accident on a contra-flow compared to another road of the same cat-egory. It even seems that the number of accidents per km of local access road is lower on contra-flows than on the rest of the local network. Moreover, the proportion of acci-dents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow is fairly close to, or slightly less, than the proportion of cyclists travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow. Studies conducted abroad confirm that the introduction of contra-flow cycling has not caused a rise in cyclist accidents on the roads concerned, and given the advantages, has a positive overall effect on safety.

Moreover, when the cyclist was travelling against the traffic, the percentage of accident victims who were seriously injured was half that when the cyclist was travelling with the traffic or making another manoeuvre.

Of the cycling accidents related to a contra-flow, accidents on a road section are overrep-resented when the cyclist was travelling with the traffic, while accidents at an intersection were overrepresented when the cyclist was travelling against the traffic.

In general, the hierarchical level of the road or intersection is a more decisive factor in the risk of a cycling accident than the introduction of contra-flow cycling on one-way streets. The main types of accidents involving a cyclist

travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow are:

• failure to give way (yield) (by one or other of the two road users) at an intersection: 14 accidents

• poor positioning of the road users involved at an intersection: 7 accidents

• vehicle turning at an intersection, cutting across the path of an oncoming cyclist: 6 accidents

• vehicle leaving a parking space on a road section: 6 accidents

• pedestrian crossing a road section: 5 acci-dents

• oncoming vehicle on a road section: 4 ac-cidents.

Studies conducted abroad confirm that most accidents with a cyclist travelling against the traffic take place at an intersection. Accidents on a road section generally involve a vehicle leaving a vehicular access or a pedestrian crossing without checking whether a cyclist is coming in the opposite direction.

The narrowness of roads does not appear to be a major factor; narrow roads are obviously awkward, but the number of accidents involv-ing cyclists travelling against the traffic on narrow roads is lower than the proportion of the road network which they form. The risk to cyclists appears to be less where parking is situated on the left (the main traffic flow being on the right) than where parking is situated on the right. Parking on the left greatly reduces the risk of accidents involving drivers open-ing car doors without looking, but it involves two main risks for contra-flow cyclists: it encourages the cyclist to veer towards the centre of the road, which is a riskier position to be in when approaching intersections, and it can mask visibility for pedestrians crossing between two vehicles without paying atten-

40fiche no 1

tion to contra-flow cyclists. A follow-up study would be useful to confirm this analysis with a larger sample of observations.

There are a number of ways of reducing the already low risk of accident for cyclists travel-ling on, entering or leaving a contra-flow. In

particular, intersections should be properly designed to reduce speeds and increase mutu-al visibility, and road users should be encour-aged to take greater care when approaching an intersection with a contra-flow.

conclusion40

conclusions

41fiche no 1

41

7 - Appendices

Analysis chart for accidents on a road section

Road section form

Municipality Accident report no.

Date Street and house no.

Type of day Time

Weather conditions Light level

Highway authority Status of the road

IRegional cycle route Parking

Cyclist Cycling infrastructure

Age of cyclist Other user

Sex

Position

Manoeuvre

Direction of travel

Road user(s) at fault

Severity of accident

Type of injury

Technical station + lighting

Alcohol

Wearing helmet/safety jacket

Speed

Saw the cyclist?

Description

Factors

42fiche no 1

Analysis chart for accidents at an intersection

42appendices

Intersection formAccident report No.

Date Time Type of day

Light level Weather cond. Status of the road

Municipality

Road cyclist coming from

Highway authority

Parking Cycling infrastructure

Road cyclist going to Highway authority

Parking Cycling infrastructure

Road car coming from Highway authority

Type intersection Type of intersectionWho had right of way?

Cyclist Other road user

Date of birth

Sex

Position

Manoeuvre

Direction

Error

Severity

Type of injury

Technical status + lighting

Alcohol

Wearing helmet/safety jacket

Speed

Saw the cyclist?

Description

Factors

43fiche no 1

Number of accidents involving cyclists riding against the traffic on a contra-flow broken down by road width and position of parking.

0 accident 0 accident 1 accident 1 accident 5 accident 7 accidents


Average 0 accident 2 accident 2 accident 0 accident 9 accident 13 accidents

Wide 1 accident 4 accident 2 accident 0 accident 6 accident 13 accidents


Number of accidents involving cyclists riding with the traffic on a contra-flow, broken down by road width and position of parking.



Average 1 accident 3 accident 1 accident 0 accident 9 accident 14 accidents

Wide 3 accident 2 accident 1 accident 1 accident 16 accident 23 accidents



Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left




Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



Staggered parking

Parking on the left



43annexes

≤ 3

m3,

1 à

3,5

m3,

6 à

4,5

m>

4,5

m

Narrow

Narrow

≤ 3

m3,

1 à

3,5

m3,

6 à

4,5

m>

4,5

m

44fiche no 1

44

Introduction• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], SULs, sens uniques

limités [contra-flow cycling]. February 2004, available at: http://webshop.BRSI.be/fr/produit/detail/sul-sens-uniques-limits-pour-une-introduction-gnralise-en-toute-scurit-des-sens-uniques-limits-ref-022

Methodology

• BRENAC T., NACHTERGAËLE C., REIGNER H., Scénarios types d'accidents impliquant des piétons et éléments pour leur prévention [Typical accident scenarios involving pedestrians and factors in preventing them], INRETS report no. 256, December 2003.

• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], Accidents de cyclistes en contexte urbain [Cycling accidents in urban areas]. January 2006, available at: http://webshop.BRSI.be/fr/produit/detail/accidents-de-cyclistes-en-contexte-urbain-ref-025

• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], Accidents de piétons sur passages pour piétons non réglés par feux [Pedestrian accidents at non-signal-controlled pedestrian crossings]. August 2009, available at: http://webshop.BRSI.be/fr/produit/detail/accidents-de-pitons-sur-passages-pour-pitons-non-rgl-par-feux-ref-045

Review of the literature

German studies• Bureau Planungsgemeinschaft Verkehr, 'Radfahren in unechten Einbahnstrassen' (Cycling

on one-way streets with contra-flow bicycle traffic)(published by the City of Munster in the framework of the ‘Cycle-friendly Cities’ study programme of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, August 1992), available at: http://epflicht.ulb.uni-muenster.de/content/titleinfo/53514 and http://veloquirit39000.fubicy.org/documentation/Etude%20%E0%20Munster%20accidents%20Sens%20Uniques%20Limit%E9s%20=%20DSC.pdf

• ALRUTZ D., ANGENEDT W., DRAEGER W. GUNDEL D., Traffic safety on one-way streets with contraflow bicycle traffic. Strassenverkehrstechnik, 6/2002, available at: http://bikexprt.com/research/contraflow/gegengerichtet.htm

Belgian study

• VANDENBULCKE G., THOMAS I., INT PANIS L., Predicting cycling accident risk in Brussels: A spatial case-control approach, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2013. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513002686

• VANDEWINCKEL, Evaluatie van de maatregel BEV naar verkeersveiligheid toe [Evaluation of contra-flow cycling with regard to traffic safety], Verkeersdienst [Traffic Service] Kortrijk, 1998.

British study

• RYLEY T. and DAVIES D., Further developments in the design of contra-flow cycling schemes, 1998.

8 - References

45fiche no 1

French studies

• Mairie de Paris [City Hall of Paris]. Bilan de la mise en place des double sens cyclables à Paris [Assessment of the establishment of cyclist contra-flows in Paris]. October 2011.

• CERTU [Centre for Studies on Road Networks, Transport, Urban Planning and Public Facilities], Evaluations des double-sens cyclables [Evaluations of cyclist contra-flows]. Presentation of Nicolas Nuyttens at the technical workshop launching the “slow traffic zones” decree of 9 September 2008, available at: http://www.certu.fr/fr/_S%C3%A9curit%C3%A9_et_circulation_routi%C3%A8res-n28/V%C3%A9los-n117/IMG/pdf/9sept08-evaluations_des_double-sens_cyclables-2.pdf and at: http://veloquirit39000.fubicy.org/documentation/Accidentologie%20en%20double%20sens%20cyclables.pdf

Norwegian study

• Study of the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research, summary available at: http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=nl&section=nieuws&mode=newsArticle&repository=Oslo:+fietsen+in+tegenrichting+geeft+weinig+problemen

Initial observations

• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], Contraflow cycling in Belgium and the Brussels Region. Presentation by Benoît Dupriez at Velocity 2009, available at: http://www.velo-city2009.com/assets/files/paper-Dupriez-sub1.4.pdf

Recommendations and discussion

• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], SULs, sens uniques limité [Cyclist contra-flows]. February 2004, available at: http://webshop.BRSI.be/fr/produit/detail/sul-sens-uniques-limits-pour-une-introduction-gnralise-en-toute-scurit-des-sens-uniques-limits-ref-022

• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], Marquage et signalisation dans les contresens cyclables [Marking and signage on cycling contraflow streets]. Vademecum vélo en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale [Cycling Guidebook for the Brussels-Capital Region]. September 2006, available at: http://webshop.BRSI.be/fr/produit/detail/marquage-et-signalisation-dans-les-contresens-cyclables-vademecum-vlo-en-rgion-de-bruxelles-capitale-ref-030

45références

46fiche no 1

46

RecheRche et analyse

Réalisé par :

Chaussée de Haecht 1405 – B-1130 BruxellesTél. : 02/244.15.11 – Fax : 02/216.43.42 E-mail : [email protected]

A l'initiative de :

Direction StratégieCCN - rue du Progrès 80 bte 1 - B-1035 BruxellesTél. : 02/204.20.07 - Fax : 02/204.15.10E-mail : [email protected]

accident risk and analyse the accidents in order to identify and understand their circumstances. This publication also makes recommendations on road layouts and awareness-raising with a view to reducing the accident risk.

Cyclist contra-flows encourage more people to travel by bicycle, as they allow cyclists to use safe routes and avoid unnecessary detours. Several years after their generalisation in the Brussels-Capital Region, it was appropriate to assess their impact on cyclist safety. Although the number of accidents involving cyclists on contra-flows is rather low, Brussels Mobility asked the Belgian Road Safety Institute (IBSR/BIVV) to quantify the

safety aspects of contraflow cycling · sels regional informatics centre) fac: formulaires...

Documents