safety aspects of contraflow cycling

(1)

safety aspects of contraflow cycling

cyclist's vademecum foR the bRussels capit

detailed analysis of accidents involv-

ing cyclists on cyclist contraflows in the

brussels-capital Region (2008, 2009 and

2010)

(2)

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

eseaRch and analysis

Glossary

BM Brussels Mobility

BIVV Belgisch Instituut voor de Verkeersveiligheid (Belgian Road Safety Institute) IBSR Institut Belge pour la Sécu-

rité Routière (Belgian Road Safety Institute)

BRSI Belgian Road Safety Insti- tute

Cyclist Vehicle Pedestrian

(3)

Summary ... 5

1 - Introduction ... 7

1.1. Objectives of the study ...7

1.2. Background ...7

1.3. Analysis of the literature ...8

2 - Methodology ... 10

2.1. The mapping step ...10

2.1.1. Mapping the contra-flows ... 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 contra-flows ...12

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

3.1.2. Over 4 in 10 cyclists on contra-flows travel against the traffic ... 13

3.2. General characteristics of accidents on contra-flows...14

3.2.1. What proportion of accidents occurred on a contra-flow? ... 14

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?... 16

3.2.3. Are contra-flows more dangerous than the rest of the road network? ... 17

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

3.2.5. Are accidents involving cyclists travelling against the traffic on contra-flows serious? .. 21

3.2.6. Is the breakdown of cycling accidents on contra-flows by age and gender significant? ....21

3.2.7. Is the breakdown of cycling accidents on a contra-flow by time significant? ... 22

(4)

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. Does specific cycling infrastructure ensure safety? ...30

5.2. What are the possible types of conflict on a contra-flow? ...31

5.3. Are narrow contra-flows more hazardous?...33

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

5.5. Can profiles of the most dangerous road types be identified? ...37

6 - Conclusions ... 39

7 - Annexes ... 41

8 - References ... 44

(5)

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 collector roads, 44% of intersections on primary collector 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 proportionally 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 travelling against the traffic, 31 (66%) occurred at an intersection. For cyclists travelling with the traffic, the proportion of accidents at intersections (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 intersections 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 decisive 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 section 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 travelled on the primary network and twice as great on local collector and primary collector roads than on the local network.

Summary

(6)

summary 6

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 accidents

• oncoming vehicle on a road section: 4 accidents.

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 intersections; 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 cyclists on contra-flows compared to the rest of the road network;

• determine the percentage of accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic;

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

• make recommendations regarding road layouts 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 evaluate 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.

(8)

8 8

fied as a result of detailed analysis of the official 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 traffic on contra-flows. However, the progressive introduction of contra-flows in several cities provides us with initial feedback from neighbouring 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 motorists believed that contra-flows were dangerous. 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 measures are desirable.

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

in 15 German cities, showed that most accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic occurred with pedestrians who failed to check whether a cyclist was coming in the contra-flow direction. Accidents between a cyclist riding against the traffic and a motor vehicle are rather rare and occur mainly at an intersection. 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 summer 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

(9)

Finally, in Oslo, the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research has studied the introduction 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 conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians on the pavement (sidewalk), to the satisfaction of pedestrians.

Thus in neighbouring countries the introduction 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.

(10)

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 accident 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 mapping 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 injuries².

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 location. 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 projection 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.

(11)

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 having 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 intersection 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 accident (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 similar 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).

(12)

fiche n^o

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

(13)

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:

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

Total number of road sec- tions Number of contra-flow sec- tions Percentage of contra-flow sections in this category (%) Total number of intersec- tions 4 Number of in- tersections with at least one contra-flow Percentage of intersections with at least one contra-flow in this category (%)

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 primary 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 information 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

(14)

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 caution, it is the only information available in such detail, and provides at least orders of magnitude 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?

14

initial observations 14

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 traffic on the contra- Cyclist on the contra-flow?

presence of one of the 2 users on the contra-flow?

992 accidents*

presence of a contra-flow?

No contra-flow in the vicinity

758

No user on the contra-flow

60

Other vehicle on the contra-flow

48

79

Cyclist riding with the traffic on the contra-flow

Cyclist riding against the traffic on the contra-flow

47

no

yes

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

(15)

Of the 992 cycling accidents analysed, 126, or 12.7%, involved a cyclist travelling on a contra- flow, entering an intersection from a contra-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 heading towards the contra-flow section.

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

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

(16)

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 entering 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 involving 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 intersection.

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 approaching an intersection with a contra-flow.

416

3131

16 48 450

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

Section n=514 Intersection n=478

on a section – not on a contra-flow

at an intersection with a contra-flow- cyclist with the traffic

at an intersection with a contra-flow - cyclist against the traffic on a section – on a

contra-flow - cyclist with the traffic

on a section – on a contra-flow - cyclist against the traffic

(17)

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 primary 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 following 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

512 48

16

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

total

ON A ROAD SECTION

AT AN INTERSECTION

cyclist on a contra-flow against the traffic cyclist on a contra-

flow travelling with the traffic

average

(18)

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

15,6

13,8

4,4 3,9

0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0

Primary Primary collector

Local roadway not contra-flow

Local roadway contra-flow

average

Local collector

At an intersection

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

Primary Primary collec-

tor Local 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 proportion 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 intersections 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 intersections according to the highest hierarchical level of road present. As a result the higher hierarchical 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 category. 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 network 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).

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 Section Intersection

Primary Primary

collector Local

# accidents

156 km 231 km 155 km 1108 km not related to a contra-flow

related to a contra-flow - cyclist travelling against the traffic related to a contra-flow - cyclist travelling with the traffic

Road Section Road Section Road Section

Intersection Intersection Intersection

Local collector

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

156 km 231 km 155 km 1108 km Accidents not related to a contra-flow

Accidents related to a contra-flow and with cyclist going with the traffic

Accidents related to a contra-flow and with cyclist going against the traffic

average

Number of accidents per 100 km of road and per year

Local Primary Primary

collector Local collector

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).

(20)

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 :

20

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 : Number of 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 primary 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-flow Accidents related to a contra-flow

average

Relative risk of accident per km travelled by bike

Local

Primary Primary

collector Local collector

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

(21)

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. crossing 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 accidents 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 travelling 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 traffic on a contra-flow. The low number of cases, however, does not allow a formal conclusion to be drawn.

(22)

fiche n^o

1 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 accidents. 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 visibility.

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 traffic on a contra-flow Cycling accidents (2008, 2009, 2010)

Number of accidents involving cyclists going against the traffic on a contra-flow Number of cycling accidents (2008, 2009, 2010)

(23)

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 cyclist contra-flow on the intersecting street) were not present. In addition, at one of these intersections, 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 involving 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 contributed 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 turning 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 79 31

Cyclist going wiht the traffic

Cyclist going against the traffic

intersecting roads same road

special cases

(24)

fiche n^o

1

24

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 intersection with priority for traffic coming from the right) + M9 sign (announcing a cyclist contra-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.

accident profiles 24

(25)

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 intersections to allow cyclists to position themselves 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.

(26)

fiche n^o

1

26

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 directions. 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 cases), 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).

(27)

4.2. Accidents on a road section

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

these 16 accidents, over one third were related to parked vehicles. Another third of the accidents 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 4 6

1

Cyclist going with

the traffic Cyclist going against the traffic

special cases

related to vehicles going with the

traffic

parking-related

pedestrian-related

(28)

fiche n^o

1

28

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 vehicles, especially when they conceal a vehicular 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.

TyPICAl 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 pedestrian 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.

(29)

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 vehicles, are sufficiently wide to allow road users to pass each other comfortably (cf. point 5, Discussion).

• Physically prevent illegal parking, which reduces 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.

(30)

fiche n^o

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 compulsory 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 presence 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 intersections with contra-flows.

11 11 2

6 1

At an intersection

compulsory cycle lane

bicycle symbols at intersection only advisory cycle lane

no specific infrastructure segregated cycle track

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 specific infrastructure segregated cycle track

(31)

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 conclusions 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 travelling in opposite directions, eight accidents at the entrance (for motor traffic) to a contra-flow section, and one at the exit (for motor traffic) 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.

(32)

fiche n^o

1

32

Figure 37 - Possible conflicts¹¹between 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 interaction

Neither problematic nor awkward

SPECIAL CARE TO BE GIVEN TO ROAD LAYOUT, ESPECIALLY AT THE APPROACH TO AN INTERSECTION

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 situation

Not problematic but awkward

All vehicles

Uncommon situation

Common situation

Not problematic but awkward

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 situation

(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 points for discussion 32

(33)

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 segment. 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 accidents 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 parking Staggered

parking Parking on

the left Parking on

the right Parking on both sides No parking Staggered

parking Parking on

the left Parking on

parking Parking on

the left Parking on

parking Parking on

the left Parking on

parking Parking on

the left Parking on

the right 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 m3,6 à 4,5 m> 4,5 m