Arizona Department of Transportation bicycle safety action plan final report

              SEPTEMBER 2012
PREPARED FOR: ADOT
ACTION PLAN
ADOT
FINAL REPORT
Bicycle Safety Action Plan
ADOT MPD Task Assignment 18‐10
PGTD 0440
Contract # T08‐49‐U0001
Final Report
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
September 2012
091374036
Cover photo credits: (left) Kimley‐Horn and Associates, (right) Kevin Davidson, (top)
Randy Victory
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 i Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Overview ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Study Area ........................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Overview of Final Report .................................................................................... 2
2 PROFILE OF BICYCLE SAFETY IN ARIZONA ........................................ 3
2.1 Stakeholder Survey ............................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Survey Responses .................................................................................................... 3
2.2 National and Arizona Bicyclist Crash Trends and Statistics ................................ 6
2.2.1 Data Sources ........................................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Crash Statistics ........................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes .......................................... 10
2.4 Analysis of SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes Using Pedestrian‐Bicycle Crash
Analysis Tool (PBCAT) ....................................................................................... 16
2.4.1 Focus Area Crashes ............................................................................................... 16
2.4.2 Priority Interchange/Intersection Crashes ............................................................ 16
2.4.3 Priority Segment Crashes ...................................................................................... 16
2.4.4 PBCAT Database .................................................................................................... 17
2.4.5 Crash Typing .......................................................................................................... 26
2.4.6 Focus Area Crash Summary ................................................................................... 27
2.5 Fatal SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes ......................................................... 46
3 BSAP GOAL AND EMPHASIS AREAS ............................................... 52
3.1 Existing Bicycle Safety Goals and Policies of Federal and State Plans .............. 52
3.2 Bicycle Safety Action Plan Goal ......................................................................... 54
3.3 Bicycle Safety Emphasis Areas .......................................................................... 54
4 COUNTERMEASURES TO IMPROVE BICYCLE SAFETY ...................... 56
5 ACTION PLAN TO IMPROVE BICYCLIST SAFETY ............................... 57
5.1 Conduct Road Safety Assessments for Priority Crash Locations ...................... 57
5.2 Modify ADOT Plans, Policies, and Guidelines ................................................... 59
5.2.1 ADOT Bicycle Policy ............................................................................................... 61
5.2.2 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines ........................................................................ 63
5.2.3 ADOT Safety Action Plan, Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and FHWA
Oversight Agreement ............................................................................................................ 65
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 ii Final Report
5.3 Install Pavement Markings or Signage to Discourage Wrong‐Way Bicycle Riding
.......................................................................................................................... 67
5.4 Develop and Adopt Arizona Complete Streets Policy ...................................... 68
5.5 Consider Bicycles at Single Point Urban Interchanges (SPUIs) ......................... 71
5.6 Recommend Modifications to Arizona Crash Report Form .............................. 74
5.7 Develop and Implement a Bicycle Counting Program ...................................... 78
5.8 Recommend Enhancements to Arizona Driver License Manual and Customer
Service Guide .................................................................................................... 79
5.9 Establish Connectivity and Alternative Routes to State Highways through Local
Jurisdictions ...................................................................................................... 82
5.10 Develop and Implement Bicyclist and Motorist Education Campaigns ........... 83
5.11 Collaborate with Law Enforcement .................................................................. 89
5.12 Recommend Changes to Arizona Revised Statutes .......................................... 90
5.13 Implement ADOT Access Management Plan .................................................... 92
5.14 Develop a BSAP Evaluation Program ................................................................ 94
6 SUMMARY .................................................................................... 96
Appendix A1 –
High Priority Crash Segments Microfilm Numbers (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
Appendix A2 –
High Priority Crash Segments Mapping (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
Appendix B1 –
SHS Priority Crash Locations Menu of Potential Countermeasures
Appendix B2 –
Crash Type Descriptions and Diagrams
Appendix C –
Web‐based Survey Input (May 2010)
Appendix D –
Summary of Referenced Resources Weblinks
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 iii Final Report
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1 – Contributing Factors, Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes in
Arizona, 2004 – 2008 ........................................................................................................ 11
Table 2 – Focus Area Intersection/Interchange Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes.............. 18
Table 3 – Focus Area Segment Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes ........................................ 22
Table 4 – PBCAT Data Items .............................................................................................. 25
Table 5 – SHS Crash Types ................................................................................................ 26
Table 6 – SHS Crash Groups .............................................................................................. 26
Table 7 – Key Observations from the PBCAT Analysis of SHS Focus Area Crashes .......... 28
Table 8 – Key Observations from the PBCAT Analysis of Fatal Crashes on the SHS ......... 46
Table 9 – Emphasis Areas to Improve Bicyclist Safety on the SHS ................................... 55
Table 10 – Potential Modifications to Arizona Crash Report Form .................................. 76
Table 11 – Potential Modifications to Arizona Driver License Manual (March 2012)...... 80
Table 12 – BSAP Emphasis Areas and Safety Campaign Messages .................................. 84
Table 13 – Summary of ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan ................................................ 97
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Nationwide Bicyclist Fatality Trends from 1994 to 2010 ................................... 7
Figure 2 – Bicyclist Fatality Trends in Arizona, 1994 to 2010 ............................................. 8
Figure 3 – Statewide Fatal Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008 ................................................... 9
Figure 4 – Injury Severity, Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 –
2008 ................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Injury Severity .................. 29
Figure 6 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Age ................................... 29
Figure 7 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Gender.............................. 30
Figure 8 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Area Type ......................... 30
Figure 9 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Cities and Towns .............. 31
Figure 10 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Group ................... 32
Figure 11 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Type ...................... 33
Figure 12 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Motorist Action .............. 34
Figure 13 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 –‐ 2008, Motorist/Bicyclist Action
.......................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 14 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Bicycle Facility Presence 36
Figure 15 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crashes by Roadway Type
(Non‐Interstate State Highways) ...................................................................................... 37
Figure 16 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crashes by Roadway Type
(Local Roadways) .............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 17 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crashes by Roadway Type
(Interstate Frontage Roads and Ramps) ........................................................................... 39
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 iv Final Report
Figure 18 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Motorist Action by
Surrounding Area Development Type .............................................................................. 40
Figure 19 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Bicyclist Location and
Motorist Action ................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 20 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Types in Large
Urbanized Areas ................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 21 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Types in Rural Areas
.......................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 22 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Types in Small Urban
Areas (5,000 – 49,999) ...................................................................................................... 44
Figure 23 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Types in Small
Urbanized Areas (50,000 – 199,999) ................................................................................ 45
Figure 24 – Fatal SHS Bicyclist Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Age ............................................... 47
Figure 25 – Fatal SHS Bicyclist Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Gender ......................................... 48
Figure 26 – Fatal SHS Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Type of Area ............................................... 49
Figure 27 – Fatal SHS Bicyclist Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Type ................................... 50
Figure 28 – Fatal SHS Bicyclist Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Motorist Action vs. Bicyclist
Direction ............................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 29 – Nationwide Status of Complete Streets Policy Development ....................... 71
Figure 30 – Example of SPUI Design on I‐17 at Northern Avenue .................................... 72
Figure 31 – State of Oregon Bicycle‐Friendly SPUI Design ............................................... 74
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 1 Final Report
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Overview
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Bicycle Safety Action Plan (BSAP)
identifies improvements, programs, and strategies that, upon their implementation, will
reduce the frequency of bicyclist fatalities and injury crashes that occur on the State
Highway System (SHS) in Arizona.
Although no single countermeasure or strategy will unilaterally reduce bicyclist crashes,
injuries, and/or fatalities, a comprehensive program of countermeasures can lead to a
reduction in bicycle crashes.
Potential improvements, programs, and strategies will consist of a combination of:
 Engineering solutions
 Education of bicyclists and motorists
 Improving enforcement of laws and regulations
 Evaluation guidelines to determine the effectiveness of the BSAP
1.2 Study Area
The study area for the ADOT BSAP consists of all ADOT‐maintained highway rights‐of‐way.
However, the study team recognizes that bicyclist crashes, fatalities, and injuries in
Arizona are not limited
to state highway rights‐of‐
way and occur on all
Arizona roadways
including those operated
and maintained by
county, tribal, and local
jurisdictions. Education
programs recommended
in the ADOT BSAP will
extend beyond the SHS
to non‐SHS roadways
including those in local
cities, counties, and
tribal lands.
County, tribal, and local
agencies and jurisdictions are also encouraged to develop Bicycle Safety Action Plans for
roadways within their jurisdictions.
Photo courtesy of Kevin Davidson
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 2 Final Report
1.3 Overview of Final Report
The BSAP, Final Report, provides an overview of information documented in previous
working papers1.
 Working Paper No. 1 presented a profile of bicycle safety on Arizona’s
state highways
 Working Paper No. 2 introduced the ADOT BSAP goal and emphasis
areas
 Working Paper No. 3 identified priority crash locations on state
highways, summarized crash analyses at these locations, and
identified a menu of potential safety countermeasures that may be
considered for implementation at each priority location to reduce
bicycle crashes
 Working Paper No. 4 provided recommendations to achieve the BSAP
safety goal, including policies, analysis tools, procedural and best‐practices
references, and programmatic considerations needed to
improve bicycle safety on the SHS.
The Bicycle Safety Action Plan, Final Report, includes the following chapters:
 Chapter 1 – Introduction
 Chapter 2 – Profile of Bicycle Safety in Arizona
 Chapter 3 – BSAP Goal and Emphasis Areas
 Chapter 4 – Countermeasures to Improve Bicycle Safety
 Chapter 5 – Action Plan to Improve Bicyclist Safety
 Chapter 6 – Summary
1 http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/bicycle_safety_study.asp
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 3 Final Report
2 PROFILE OF BICYCLE SAFETY IN ARIZONA
Chapter 2 describes the current state of bicycle safety in Arizona, as previously
documented in Working Paper No. 1. The profile draws from public input as obtained
through a statewide survey, statewide motor vehicle‐bicycle crash statistics, and SHS
motor vehicle‐bicycle crash
statistics.
2.1 Stakeholder Survey
Public stakeholders represent a
valuable resource and partner in
learning more about bicycle usage
in Arizona and identifying specific
bicycle safety concerns on the SHS.
In the spring of 2010, a web‐based
survey was distributed to bicycling
stakeholders statewide to solicit
input and perspectives about bicycle
usage patterns and bicycling
conditions at specific locations on
the SHS. A link to the public survey
was posted on the ADOT Bicycle and
Pedestrian Program website
homepage.2
The survey was disseminated to the
ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian
Program e‐mail notification/distribution list. Copies of the survey were also provided to
tribal communities, and a press release was issued inviting the public to participate in
the survey.
2.1.1 Survey Responses
There were 1,076 respondents to the on‐line survey, which was posted for
approximately a six‐week period. The survey’s findings are summarized below.
Question 1: Voluntary information including name, email address, and city/town/zip
code
 Respondents represented 74 cities and towns in Arizona. Three
respondents identified themselves as being from out of state.
2 http://www.azbikeped.org/index.html
Photo courtesy of Randy Victory
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 4 Final Report
Question 2: Please describe your bicycling level of experience.
 70 percent of respondents self‐identified as ‘advanced’ bicyclists. The
study team recognizes that survey respondents are self‐selected, and
that experienced bicyclists are more likely to be engaged in bicycling
advocacy and to respond to a survey. The study team also recognizes
that people who seldom ride on the SHS are under‐represented in the
survey respondents. In addition, populations of disadvantaged
groups are underrepresented.
Question 3: Do you bicycle on any state highways?
 75 percent stated that they ride on state highways.
Question 4: If you answered yes to question #3, how often do you bicycle on the state
highway (please count each round trip as one trip)?
 Of those who ride on state highways, approximately 39 percent of
respondents bicycle at least once per week; an additional 38 percent
of the respondents bicycle at least once or more per month.
Question 5: If you answered yes to question #3, on average, approximately how far do
you bicycle?
 The majority of respondents use the state highways for bicycle rides
that are more than 10 miles.
Question 6: If you answered yes to question #3, what is the purpose of your bicycling
trips on the state highway? Please check all boxes that are applicable.
 Most survey respondents identified bicycling for recreation or
exercise as the purpose for their bicycle trips, comprising 95 percent
of those responding to this question.
Question 7: If you answered NO in question #3, (you don't bicycle on state highways)
identify the reasons that you don't bicycle or don't bicycle more often to reach your
destination.
 Over 77 percent of respondents listed safety concerns as a reason
that they do not bicycle more often; a lack of bicycle lanes or wide
shoulders was also listed by nearly 70 percent of respondents,
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 5 Final Report
demonstrating that most bicyclists perceive that bicycle lanes and
wide shoulders are requisite facilities.
Question 8: Are you aware of any general or specific bicycling safety issues, concerns, or
obstacles on the state highways within or near your community, town, or city?
 There were 587 responses to Question 8; a summary of responses to
Question 8 is provided in Appendix C.
Question 9: What steps can be taken to improve bicycle safety and to reduce the crashes
involving bicyclists? These could include educational programs, road improvements, and
increased enforcement.
 Stakeholders identified action items related to improved shoulder
maintenance, public awareness and education, law enforcement,
pavement markings and signage, roadway and shoulder construction
and maintenance (e.g., rumble strips), improved bicycle network
(wide, paved, striped shoulders), roadway and shoulder construction
practices, and improved connectivity; suggestions included:
- Perform regular maintenance of shoulders and bicycle lanes (maintain the
surface and sweep debris)
- Develop an educational program (including for law enforcement) to raise
awareness and to teach drivers and bicyclists the rules of the road and how to be
observant and considerate; include education of three‐foot law
- Increase enforcement and penalties for both motorists and bicyclists
- Provide more wide shoulders and/or bicycle lanes, and pathways where feasible
Question 10: The ADOT State Highway Bicycle Safety Action Plan may result in
recommendations for improvement projects on state highways. Understanding that
funding is limited, projects will require prioritization. Please rate the importance of each
of the listed prioritization criteria.
Multiple criteria were rated as very important by survey respondents, including project
impact on safety, the cost and benefit of the project, comfort level of bicyclists, project
attracts the most users, and project establishes connectivity.
Project impact on safety was identified as the most important criteria. The top three
criteria identified by survey respondents were:
 Project impact on safety
 Project establishes or improves connectivity
 Cost/benefit of the project
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 6 Final Report
Question 11: Please list any bicycle clubs, groups, or advocacy organizations that you
belong to, or with which you participate.
811 persons responded to this question, identifying 210 clubs. A list is provided in
Working Paper No. 1.3
2.2 National and Arizona Bicyclist Crash Trends and Statistics
2.2.1 Data Sources
This section summarizes fatal motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes on a nationwide and
statewide basis, drawing from information contained in the following sources:
 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2010:4 The FARS contains
data on fatal traffic crashes within the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To be included in FARS, a crash must
involve a motor vehicle travelling on a road customarily open to the
public and resulting in the death of a person (occupant of a vehicle or
a non‐occupant) within 30 days of the crash.
 The Arizona Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2010:5 This document,
prepared by ADOT, reports motor vehicle‐bicycle crash statistics in
Arizona.
 Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP):6 The SHSP identifies
emphasis areas related to motor vehicle crashes based on an analysis
of 2001 to 2005 crash data. Several of the identified emphasis areas
are related to motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes, namely speeding,
impaired driving, lane departure, and intersection crashes.
2.2.2 Crash Statistics
Nationally in the United States in 2010, 618 bicyclists were killed in motor vehicle‐bicycle
crashes, representing 1.7 percent of total traffic crash fatalities (FARS).
In Arizona in 2010, 19 bicyclists were killed in motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes,
representing 2.72 percent of all motor vehicle crash fatalities (698) in the state. This
represents a 28 percent decrease from 2009, when 25 bicyclists were killed in Arizona,
representing 2.5 percent of all motor vehicle crash fatalities. In 2009, Arizona ranked 5th
highest in bicyclist fatalities per million population. In 2010, Arizona ranks 7th highest in
bicyclist fatalities per million population.
3 http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/systems_planning/bicycle_safety_study.asp
4 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811624.pdf
5 http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/statistics/crash/index.asp
6 http://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/TSS/SHSP/AZ_Strategic_Highway_Safety_Plan.pdf
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 7 Final Report
Figure 1 depicts the number of bicyclist fatalities reported nationwide from 1994 to
2010 (FARS).
Figure 2 depicts bicyclist fatalities reported in Arizona from 1994 to 2010. Figure 3
shows the locations of statewide fatal bicycle crashes from 2004 to 2008.
Source: Fatality Accident Reporting System
Figure 1 – Nationwide Bicyclist Fatality Trends from 1994 to 2010
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 8 Final Report
Source: Fatality Accident Reporting System, Arizona Motor Vehicle Crash Facts 2010
Figure 2 – Bicyclist Fatality Trends in Arizona, 1994 to 2010
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 9 Final Report
Figure 3 – Statewide Fatal Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 10 Final Report
2.3 Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes
The study team recognizes that a majority of bicyclist crashes in Arizona (approximately
90 percent) occur on local city and county roadways that are outside the jurisdiction of
ADOT. However, although the BSAP is focused on the SHS, many of the
recommendations from the BSAP will benefit bicyclist safety on both the SHS and all
public roadways in Arizona.
This section summarizes statewide (all public roads in Arizona) motor vehicle‐bicycle
crashes and those that occurred on the SHS, based on crash data provided by ADOT for
the period from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008.
The data shows that:
 A total of 9,867 motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes were reported
statewide (all public roads in Arizona), 2004 to 2008
 Of the 9,867 statewide crashes, 1,089 motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes
were reported on the SHS
Figure 4 illustrates the injury severity of the crashes that were reported for both
statewide (all public roads) and SHS motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes. While SHS crash
statistics are similar to crashes that occurred on all roads in Arizona, SHS crashes are
generally more severe, as demonstrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4 – Injury Severity, Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 –
2008
Table 1 shows contributing factors for statewide (all public roadways) and SHS motor
vehicle‐bicycle crashes. A review of the ADOT crash data illustrates the following:
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 11 Final Report
 77 percent of motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes on state highways and
statewide (all public roads) occurred in daylight
 23 percent (SHS) and 22 percent (statewide) of motor vehicle‐bicycle
crashes included a report that the motorist failed to yield the right‐of‐way
 12 percent (SHS) and 11 percent (statewide) of motor vehicle‐bicycle
crashes were attributed to the bicyclist not yielding the right‐of‐way
 47 percent (SHS) and 41 percent (statewide) of bicyclists were aged
25 to 54
 83 percent (SHS) and 79 percent (statewide) of bicyclists involved in
crashes were male
A more detailed review of SHS crashes, utilizing the Pedestrian‐Bicycle Crash Analysis
Tool, is reported in Section 2.4.
Table 1 – Contributing Factors, Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes
in Arizona, 2004 – 2008
Contributing
Factor Condition
Statewide
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
SHS
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
Number of
crashes Percentage Number of
crashes Percentage
Total Crashes ‐ 9,867 ‐ 1,089 ‐
Lighting Conditions
Not Reported 30 < 1% 3 < 1%
Daylight 7620 77% 837 77%
Dawn or Dusk 625 6% 64 6%
Darkness 1592 16% 185 17%
Weather
Clear 8820 89% 958 88%
Cloudy 831 8% 106 10%
Sleet/Hail 5 < 1% 1 < 1%
Rain 153 2% 17 2%
Snow 7 < 1% 1 < 1%
Severe Crosswinds 5 < 1% 1 < 1%
Blowing Sand, Soil,
Dirt, Snow 3 < 1% 2 < 1%
Fog, Smog, Smoke 2 < 1% ‐ ‐
Unknown 41 < 1% 3 < 1%
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 12 Final Report
Table 1 – Contributing Factors, Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes
in Arizona, 2004 – 2008
Contributing
Factor Condition
Statewide
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
SHS
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
Number of
crashes Percentage Number of
crashes Percentage
Surface Condition
Dry 9394 95% 1024 94%
Wet 245 2% 31 3%
Snow 4 < 1%
Slush 1 < 1% 1 < 1%
Ice 6 < 1%
Other 19 < 1% 1 < 1%
Unknown 198 2% 32 3%
Physical Condition
(Motorist)
No Apparent
Influence 8231 82% 909 83%
Had Been Drinking 122 1% 15 1%
Appeared to be
Under Influence of
Drugs
19 < 1% 2 < 1%
Ill‐Ability
Influenced 3 < 1% 1 < 1%
Sleepy‐Fatigued 8 < 1% < 1%
Physical
Impairment 7 < 1% 1 < 1%
Prescription Drugs 27 < 1% 3 < 1%
Other 51 1% 6 16%
Unknown 1560 16% 164 15%
Physical Condition
(Bicyclist)
No Apparent
Influence 8497 85% 888 81%
Had Been Drinking 320 3% 56 5%
Appeared to be
Under Influence of
Drugs
25 < 1% 1 < 1%
Ill‐Ability
Influenced 3 < 1% ‐ ‐
Sleepy‐Fatigued 2 < 1% ‐ ‐
Physical
Impairment 9 < 1% 2 < 1%
Prescription Drugs 12 < 1% 2 < 1%
Other 94 1% 13 1%
Unknown 1003 10% 139 13%
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 13 Final Report
Table 1 – Contributing Factors, Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes
in Arizona, 2004 – 2008
Contributing
Factor Condition
Statewide
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
SHS
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
Number of
crashes Percentage Number of
crashes Percentage
Violation (Motorist)
(continued)
No Improper
Driving 4888 49% 515 47%
Speed Too Fast for
Conditions 167 2% 15 1%
Exceeded Lawful
Speed 29 < 1% ‐ ‐
Failed to Yield
Right‐of‐Way 2192 22% 257 23%
Followed Too
Closely 16 < 1% 1 < 1%
Ran Stop Sign 76 1% 7 1%
Disregarded Traffic
Signal 122 1% 11 1%
Made Improper
Turn 95 1% 4 < 1%
Drove in Opposing
Traffic Lane 53 1% 2 < 1%
Knowingly
Operated with
Faulty or Missing
Equipment
2 < 1% ‐ ‐
Pass in No‐Passing
Zone 3 < 1% 2 < 1%
Unsafe Lane
Change 27 < 1% 3 < 1%
Other Unsafe
Passing 46 < 1% 9 1%
Inattention 1131 11% 146 13%
Other 438 4% 49 4%
Unknown 733 7% 78 7%
Violation (Bicyclist)
No Improper
Driving 2901 29% 305 28%
Speed Too Fast for
Conditions 75 1% 7 1%
Exceeded Lawful
Speed 3 < 1% ‐ ‐
Failed to Yield
Right‐Of‐Way 1225 12% 124 11%
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 14 Final Report
Table 1 – Contributing Factors, Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes
in Arizona, 2004 – 2008
Contributing
Factor Condition
Statewide
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
SHS
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
Number of
crashes Percentage Number of
crashes Percentage
Violation (Bicyclist)
Continued
Followed Too
Closely 5 < 1% ‐ ‐
Ran Stop Sign 173 2% 5 < 1%
Disregarded Traffic
Signal 422 4% 101 9%
Made Improper
Turn 56 1% 5 < 1%
Drove in Opposing
Traffic Lane 901 9% 86 8%
Knowingly
Operated with
Faulty or Missing
Equipment
141 1% 13 1%
Inattention 971 10% 108 10%
Other 2435 24% 277 25%
Unknown 647 6% 69 6%
Age (Motorist)
0 to 5 1 < 1% 0 < 1%
6 to 15 27 < 1% 1 < 1%
16 to 19 745 7% 60 5%
20 to 24 1102 11% 117 11%
25 to 54 4938 49% 532 48%
55 to 80 1688 17% 224 20%
>80 164 2% 19 2%
Unknown 1353 14% 146 13%
Age (Bicyclist)
0 to 5 64 1% 2 < 1%
6 to 15 2236 22% 138 13%
16 to 19 1098 11% 119 11%
20 to 24 1105 11% 132 12%
25 to 54 4072 41% 522 47%
55 to 80 848 9% 114 10%
>80 36 < 1% 5 < 1%
Unknown 496 5% 68 6%
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 15 Final Report
Table 1 – Contributing Factors, Statewide and SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes
in Arizona, 2004 – 2008
Contributing
Factor Condition
Statewide
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
SHS
Motor Vehicle-Bicycle
Crashes
Number of
crashes Percentage Number of
crashes Percentage
Gender (Motorist)
Male 5182 52% 593 54%
Female 4048 40% 415 38%
Unknown 788 8% 91 8%
Gender (Bicyclist)
Male 7884 79% 909 83%
Female 1980 20% 178 16%
Unknown 91 1% 13 1%
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 16 Final Report
2.4 Analysis of SHS Motor Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes Using
Pedestrian-Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT)
This section presents a detailed summary of motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes that occurred
on the SHS. The analysis was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Pedestrian‐Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT).
2.4.1 Focus Area Crashes
Statewide (all public roadways) motor vehicle‐bicycle crash data was obtained from
ADOT for the years 2004 – 2008, during which there were 9,867 motor vehicle‐bicycle
crashes. 1,089 of these motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes occurred on Arizona’s SHS.
Utilizing geographic information system (GIS) tools, areas of the SHS with higher
numbers of motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes were identified. The 746 focus area crashes
occurred at both intersections and along segments. Each focus area crash was
categorized as an ‘intersection/interchange’ crash or as a ‘segment’ crash:
 Intersection/interchange crashes are focused on specific
intersections/interchanges, and adjacent roadways did not exhibit a
pattern of crashes. The analysis identified 91 intersection /
interchange locations comprising 266 crashes (Table 2).
 Segment crashes are those for which crash pattern extends along the
length of a corridor. Note that segment crashes include all of the
crashes within the segment, including those at intersections within
the segment. The analysis identified 33 segments comprising 480
crashes (Table 3).
The next step was to identify priority locations from among the
interchanges/intersections and segments consistent with criteria as explained below.
2.4.2 Priority Interchange/Intersection Crashes
Priority intersection/interchanges are those that met the following criteria:
 Intersection experienced five (5) or more crashes in the analysis
period (2004 – 2008)
Fifteen (15) intersection/interchange locations met the prioritization criteria. These are
identified in Table 2. These 15 intersections experienced 85 motor vehicle‐ bicycle
crashes during the analysis period.
Mapping of each priority intersection/interchange is provided in Appendix A.
2.4.3 Priority Segment Crashes
Priority segments are those that met the following criteria:
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 17 Final Report
 Segment experienced five (5) or more crashes in the analysis period
(2004 – 2008)
 Crashes per mile per year on the segment are greater than 1
Nineteen (19) segments met the prioritization criteria (Table 3). These 19 segments
experienced 441 motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes during the analysis period.
Mapping of each priority segment is provided in Appendix A.
2.4.4 PBCAT Database
The development of effective countermeasures to help prevent motor vehicle‐bicycle
crashes is often hindered by insufficient detail in the crash reports and database, which
lack sufficient level of detail regarding the sequence of actions leading to each crash. To
address this shortcoming, the study team utilized the FHWA PBCAT to develop a
database of the 746 focus area crashes. PBCAT is a software application designed to
assist in the analysis of bicycle and pedestrian crashes. The tool aids the analyst in
determining important pre‐crash details and identifying a crash type.
Arizona Crash Reports were obtained for each of the 746 SHS focus area crashes. The
narrative of each crash report was reviewed and information regarding each crash was
input into the PBCAT database. Table 4 lists data items that were entered for each
crash in the PBCAT database.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 18 Final Report
Table 2 – Focus Area Intersection/Interchange Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes
Location
ID City/Town Type On Street Intersecting Street Number of
Crashes
Priority
Location
39b Tempe Intersection Scottsdale Road SR 202 Ramp 8 
18c Mesa Intersection SR 87 SR 202 Ramp 6 
26b Phoenix Intersection Indian School Road SR 51 Ramp 6 
28c Phoenix Intersection Northern Avenue I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 6 
28e Phoenix Intersection Bethany Home Road I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 6 
30a Phoenix Intersection Indian School Road I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 6 
39a Tempe Intersection Priest Drive SR 202 Ramp 6 
39e Tempe Intersection Baseline Road I‐10 Ramp 6 
6a Chandler Intersection Elliot Road SR 101 Ramp/Frontage Road 5 
6d Chandler Intersection SR 87 SR 202 Ramp 5 
18e Mesa Intersection SR 87 McKellips Road 5 
26f Phoenix Intersection 7th Street I‐10 Ramp 5 
26h Phoenix Intersection 24th Street SR 202 Ramp 5 
27b Phoenix Intersection 27th Avenue SR‐101 Frontage Road (Beardsley Road) 5 
39f Tempe Intersection Priest Drive US 60 5 
22d Oro Valley Intersection SR 77 Orange Grove Road 4 ‐
25e Peoria and
Glendale Intersection US 60 Bethany Home Road 4 ‐
26d Phoenix Intersection McDowell Road SR 51 Ramp 4 ‐
26i Phoenix Intersection 32nd Street SR 202 Ramp 4 ‐
27c Phoenix Intersection Union Hills Drive I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 4 ‐
28b Phoenix Intersection Dunlap Avenue I‐17 Ramp 4 ‐
39g Tempe Intersection Mill Avenue US 60 Ramp 4 ‐
41a Tucson Intersection SR 86 Kostka Avenue/Valley Road 4 ‐
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 19 Final Report
Table 2 – Focus Area Intersection/Interchange Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes (continued)
Location
ID City/Town Type On Street Intersecting Street Number of
Crashes
Priority
Location
41c Tucson Intersection 6th Avenue I‐10 Ramp 4 ‐
2c Apache
Junction Intersection SR 88 US 60 3 ‐
3a Avondale Intersection Dysart Road I‐10 Ramp 3 ‐
6b Chandler Intersection Warner Road SR 101 Ramp/Frontage Road 3 ‐
6c Chandler Intersection Chandler Boulevard SR 101 Ramp 3 ‐
25c Peoria and
Glendale Intersection Olive Avenue SR 101 Ramp 3 ‐
25d Peoria and
Glendale Intersection US 60 Peoria Avenue 3 ‐
26c Phoenix Intersection Thomas Road SR 51 Frontage Road/Ramp 3 ‐
26g Phoenix Intersection 16th Street I‐10 Ramp 3 ‐
27d Phoenix Intersection Bell Road I‐17 Frontage Road 3 ‐
27e Phoenix Intersection Greenway Road I‐17 Ramp 3 ‐
27f Phoenix Intersection Thunderbird Road I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 3 ‐
28a Phoenix Intersection Peoria Avenue I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 3 ‐
29a Phoenix Intersection Bell Road SR 51 Ramp 3 ‐
39c Tempe Intersection McClintock Drive SR 202 Ramp 3 ‐
40c Tucson Intersection Grant Road I‐10 Frontage Road/Ramp 3 ‐
40d Tucson Intersection Speedway Boulevard I‐10 Frontage Road/Ramp 3 ‐
41d Tucson Intersection SR 210 Richey Boulevard 3 ‐
42 Tucson Intersection Kolb Road I‐10 Frontage Road 3 ‐
1 Aguila Intersection US 60 1st Street 2 ‐
2a Apache
Junction Intersection SR 88 Superstition Boulevard/Scenic Street 2 ‐
3b Avondale Intersection McDowell Road SR 101 Ramp 2 ‐
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 20 Final Report
Table 2 – Focus Area Intersection/Interchange Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes (continued)
Location
ID City/Town Type On Street Intersecting Street Number of
Crashes
Priority
Location
11f Flagstaff Intersection Butler Avenue I‐40 Ramp 2 ‐
*11g Flagstaff Intersection US 89 Snowflake Drive 2 ‐
13 Glendale Intersection 67th Avenue SR 101 Ramp 2 ‐
14a Kingman Intersection Stockton Hill Road I‐40 2 ‐
16 Marana Intersection Burlingame Rd/Cortaro Rd I‐10 Ramp/Frontage Road 2 ‐
17a Mesa Intersection University Drive SR 202 Ramp 2 ‐
17c Mesa Intersection Guadalupe Road SR 202 Ramp 2 ‐
18b Mesa Intersection McKellips Road SR 202 Ramp 2 ‐
19b Mesa Intersection Stapley Drive US 60 Ramp 2 ‐
20 Mesa Intersection Greenfield Road US 60 Ramp 2 ‐
22b Oro Valley Intersection SR 77 Calle Concordia 2 ‐
23a Oro Valley Intersection SR 77 Rancho Vistoso Boulevard 2 ‐
23b Oro Valley Intersection SR 77 Tangerine Road 2 ‐
23c Oro Valley Intersection SR 77 Rams Field Pass 2 ‐
24b Payson Intersection SR 260 SR 87 2 ‐
25a Peoria and
Glendale Intersection Thunderbird Road SR 101 Ramp 2 ‐
26j Phoenix Intersection 40th Street SR 202 Ramp 2 ‐
26k Phoenix Intersection 7th Street I‐17 Frontage/Access Road 2 ‐
27a Phoenix Intersection Deer Valley Road I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 2 ‐
28d Phoenix Intersection Glendale Avenue I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 2 ‐
28f Phoenix Intersection Camelback Road I‐17 Frontage Road/Ramp 2 ‐
28g Phoenix Intersection Camelback Road US 60 Ramp 2 ‐
*Note: Segment 11g (US 89/Snowflake Drive) has been transferred to the City of Flagstaff.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 21 Final Report
Table 2 – Focus Area Intersection/Interchange Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes (continued)
Location
ID City/Town Type On Street Intersecting Street Number of
Crashes
Priority
Location
30b Phoenix Intersection Thomas Road I‐17 Ramp 2 ‐
30c Phoenix Intersection 67th Avenue I‐10 Ramp 2 ‐
33 Prescott Valley Intersection SR 69 Robert Road 2 ‐
34 San Luis Intersection US 95 B Street/C Street 2 ‐
39h Tempe Intersection Rural Road US 60 Ramp 2 ‐
39i Tempe Intersection Southern Avenue SR 101 Ramp 2 ‐
39k Tempe Intersection Guadalupe Road SR 101 Ramp 2 ‐
40e Tucson Intersection St. Mary's Road I‐10 Frontage Road/Ramp 2 ‐
40f Tucson Intersection Congress Street I‐10 Frontage Road/Ramp 2 ‐
40h Tucson Intersection Broadway Boulevard SR 210 2 ‐
41b Tucson Intersection Irvington Road I‐19 Ramp 2 ‐
44a Yuma Intersection US 95 32nd Street 2 ‐
43a Wickenburg Intersection US 60/US 93 Adams Street/Apache Street 2 ‐
43b Wickenburg Intersection US 60 295th Avenue to Cookes Road 2 ‐
12 Florence Intersection SR 79B San Carlos Street 1 ‐
19c Mesa Intersection Gilbert Road Inverness Avenue 1 ‐
25b Peoria and
Glendale Intersection Peoria Avenue SR 101 Ramp 1 ‐
26a Phoenix Intersection Camelback Road SR 51 Frontage Road 1 ‐
26e Phoenix Intersection 7th Avenue I‐10 Ramp 1 ‐
27g Phoenix Intersection Cactus Road I‐17 Ramp 1 ‐
29b Phoenix Intersection Cactus Road SR 51 Ramp 1 ‐
36 Show Low Intersection US 60 5th Street 1 ‐
39d Tempe Intersection Broadway Road I‐10 Ramp 1 ‐
40g Tucson Intersection Starr Pass Boulevard I‐10 Ramp 1 ‐
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 22 Final Report
Table 3 – Focus Area Segment Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes
Location
ID City/Town Type On Street Limits
Number
Through
Lanes
Length
(Miles)
Number of
Crashes
Crashes/
Mile / Year
Priority
Location
11c Flagstaff Segment SR 40B SR 89A to Elden Street 4 1 56 11.2 
11a Flagstaff Segment SR 89A (Milton
Road) I‐17 to SR 40B 4 1.3 33 5.1 
15 Lake Havasu
City Segment SR 95 Swanson Avenue to
Mesquite Avenue 4 0.22 4 3.6 ‐
18a Mesa Segment SR 101 Frontage
Road/Ramp
University Drive to
Broadway Road 2 1.01 15 3.0 
11d Flagstaff Segment Route 66 Switzer Canyon Drive to
Lockett Road 4 3.1 45 2.9 
22c Oro Valley Segment SR 77 Mountain Vista Drive to
Ina Road 6 1.33 19 2.9 
40a Tucson Segment SR 77 (Oracle
Road) River Road to Miracle Mile 6 2.5 32 2.6 
8 Cottonwood Segment SR 89A Cottonwood Street to
Grosetta Road 4 0.63 8 2.5 
*44b Yuma Segment SR 8B 7th Street to Catalina
Drive 4 or 6 3.05 35 2.3 
24a Payson Segment SR 87 Forest Drive to Ridge Lane 4 1.95 22 2.3 
5 Casa Grande Segment SR 287/SR 387 Cottonwood Lane to
Arizona Road 4 3.5 37 2.1 
14b Kingman Segment SR 66 I‐40 to Armour Avenue 4 0.5 5 2.0 
*Note: Segment 44b SR 8B has been transferred to City of Yuma.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 23 Final Report
Table 3 – Focus Area Segment Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes (continued)
Location
ID City/Town Type On Street Limits
Number
Through
Lanes
Length
(Miles)
Number of
Crashes
Crashes/
Mile / Year
Priority
Location
25e Peoria and
Glendale Segment US 60 Northern Avenue to
Bethany Home Road 6 0.5 5 2.0 
44a Yuma Segment US 95 Arizona Avenue to 24th
Street 4 3.02 26 1.9 
40b Tucson Segment SR 77 (Miracle
Mile)
Fairview Avenue to
Romero Road 4 0.67 6 1.8 
35 Sedona Segment SR 89A Dry Creek Road to Soldier
Pass Road 4 1.88 15 1.6 
11e Flagstaff Segment US 180 SR 40B to Meade Lane 2 1.4 11 1.6 
38 Somerton Segment US 95 State Street to Somerton
Avenue 4 0.27 2 1.5 ‐
2b Apache
Junction Segment SR 88 Broadway Avenue to 14th
Avenue 4 0.42 3 1.4 ‐
11b Flagstaff Segment SR 40B Blackbird Roost Street to
Riordan Road 4 0.29 2 1.4 ‐
17b Mesa Segment US 60X Sossaman Road to
Meridian Drive 6 5.02 34 1.4 
32 Prescott Segment SR 69/SR 89 Bradshaw Drive to
Heather Heights 4 0.61 4 1.3 ‐
37a Sierra Vista Segment SR 92/SR 90 MLK Parkway/Tree Top
Ave to Calle Mercancia 4 2.49 15 1.2 
19a Mesa/ Gilbert Segment SR 87 Guadalupe Road to
Baseline Road 6 1.02 6 1.2 
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 24 Final Report
Table 3 – Focus Area Segment Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Crashes (continued)
Location
ID City/Town Type On Street Limits
Number
Through
Lanes
Length
(Miles)
Number of
Crashes
Crashes/
Mile / Year
Priority
Location
9 Douglas Segment US 191B 1st Street to 7th Street 4 0.6 3 1.0 ‐
10a El Mirage Segment US 60 Thompson Ranch Road to
Poppy Street 4 0.43 2 0.9 ‐
7 Chino Valley Segment SR 89 Road 1 North to
Perkinsville Road 4 1.3 5 0.8 ‐
21a, 21b Nogales Segment SR 19B SR 82 to International
Street 4 1.47 5 0.7 ‐
39j Tempe Segment SR 101 Front.
Road/Ramp Baseline Road to US 60 2 1.02 3 0.6 ‐
4 Bullhead City Segment SR 95 Marina Boulevard to
Seventh Street 4 4.4 11 0.5 ‐
24c Payson Segment SR 260 Tyler Parkway to
Chaparral Pines Road 4 0.84 2 0.5 ‐
31 Pinetop
Lakeside Segment SR 260 Woodland Lake Road to
Rainbow Lake Dr. 4 4.58 9 0.4 ‐
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 25 Final Report
Table 4 – PBCAT Data Items
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 26 Final Report
2.4.5 Crash Typing
The PBCAT database was utilized to “crash type” each of the 746 focus area crashes.
Crash typing was developed in the 1970s by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to better define the sequence of actions leading to bicycle and
pedestrian crashes. PBCAT includes the latest evolution of crash types and includes
more than 70 specific bicyclist crash types.
Each of the 746 focus area crashes was assigned a crash type. Table 5 lists the top five
crash types that comprise more than 50 percent of focus area crashes.
The crash types may be collapsed into 20 crash‐typing groups. Table 6 lists the three
most frequent crash groups that comprise more than 50 percent of focus area crashes.
Table 5 – SHS Crash Types
Number of
SHS Focus
Area Crashes
Percentage of
SHS Focus
Area Crashes Crash Type Description
103 13.8 % Bicyclist Ride Through ‐ Signalized Intersection
83 11.1 % Motorist Drive Out ‐ Sign‐Controlled Intersection
76 10.1 % Motorist Drive Out ‐ Right‐Turn‐on‐Red
71 9.51 % Motorist Drive Out ‐ Commercial Driveway / Alley
61 8.17 % Motorist Drive Out ‐ Signalized Intersection
746 Total SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes
Table 6 – SHS Crash Groups
Number of
SHS Focus
Area Crashes
Percentage of
SHS Focus
Area Crashes Crash Group Description
148 19.8% Motorist Failed to Yield ‐ Signalized Intersection: The motorist
enters an intersection and fails to stop at a traffic signal, striking a
bicyclist who is traveling through the intersection on a
perpendicular path. Typically, no turning movements are made by
either party, except for a possible right turn on red. Many of these
crashes involve bicyclists who are riding the wrong‐way against
traffic, either in the roadway or on the sidewalk approaching the
intersection.
122 16.3% Bicyclist Failed to Yield ‐ Signalized Intersection: The bicyclist enters
an intersection on a red signal or is caught in the intersection by a
signal change, colliding with a motorist. This group of crashes could
involve a lack of understanding of the signal or inexperience of a
young bicyclist or flagrant disregard for the signal by an older
bicyclist. In many of these crashes, the bicyclist is likely to be
riding on the sidewalk or riding the wrong‐way, against traffic, and
failed to notice the signal indication.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 27 Final Report
Table 6 – SHS Crash Groups (continued)
Number of
SHS Focus
Area Crashes
Percentage of
SHS Focus
Area Crashes
Crash Group Description
108 14.4% Motorist Drove / Motorist Failed to Yield Midblock: The motorist
typically pulls out of a driveway or alleyway and fails to yield to a
bicyclist riding along the roadway or a parallel path or sidewalk.
Two‐thirds of these types of crashes typically involve a bicyclist
who is riding the wrong‐way against traffic, either on the sidewalk
or on the roadway.
746 Total SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes
2.4.6 Focus Area Crash Summary
Figure 5 through Figure 23 present analysis of the 746 focus area crashes. Table 7 lists
key observations for each figure.
It should be emphasized that the percentages presented in Figure 5 through Figure 23
are based on the 746 focus area crashes, and not all SHS crashes that occurred within
the analysis period.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 28 Final Report
Table 7 – Key Observations from the PBCAT Analysis of SHS Focus Area Crashes
Figure Key Observations
Figure 5  1 percent of crashes resulted in a fatality.
 10 percent of crashes resulted in an incapacitating injury.
Figure 6  47 percent of bicyclists are between the ages of 25‐54.
Figure 7  The vast majority of bicyclists (82 percent) are male.
Figure 8  Most crashes (99 percent) occurred in urbanized and developed areas, even though
most bicycling in Arizona is recreational (as determined by survey responses); even on
the SHS, most crashes occurred in urbanized and developed areas.
Figure 9  The Flagstaff urban area represents 20 percent of all SHS motor vehicle‐bicycle
crashes. Flagstaff has numerous state highways including US 180 and US 89.
Figure 10  The most common crash groups are “motorist failed to yield – at signalized
intersections” (20 percent) and “bicyclist failed to yield at signalized intersections” (16
percent).
Figure 11  The most common crash types are “bicyclist ride through‐signalized intersection” (14
percent) and “motorist drive out‐sign controlled intersection” (11 percent). Another
frequent crash type is “motorist drive‐out – right turn on red” (10 percent).
Figure 12  The majority of crashes (51 percent) occurred while a vehicle was making a right turn.
Figure 13  37 percent of crashes occurred while the motorist was making a right turn and the
bicyclist was facing traffic (as opposed to riding with traffic).
Figure 14  84 percent of crashes occurred in locations with no bicycle facilities (shoulder, bicycle
lane, etc.).
Figure 15  9 percent of crashes on Non‐Interstate State Highways were crash typed as “motorist
drive‐out – sign‐controlled intersection.
Figure 16  8 percent of crashes on Local/Municipal roads were crash typed as “bicyclist ride
through – signalized intersection.
Figure 17  0.27 percent of crashes on interstate frontage roads and ramps were crash typed as
“crossing paths – uncontrolled intersections.”
Figure 18  46 percent of crashes occurred near commercial or industrial development while a
vehicle was making a right turn.
Figure 19  21 percent of crashes occurred while the motorist was making a right turn, and the
bicyclist was riding on the sidewalk.
Figure 20  The most common crash type in large urbanized areas (200,000 or more) is “motorist
failed to yield – signalized intersection” (11 percent).
Figure 21  The most common crash type in rural areas is “motorist overtaking bicyclist”
(0.4 percent).
Figure 22  The most common crash type in small urban areas (5,000 – 49,999) is “motorist failed
to yield – midblock” (5 percent).
Figure 23  The most common crash type in small urban areas (50,000 – 199,999) is “motorist
failed to yield – signalized intersection” (6 percent).
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 29 Final Report
Figure 5 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Injury Severity
Figure 6 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Age
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 30 Final Report
Figure 7 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Gender
Figure 8 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Area Type
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 31 Final Report
8.31%
0.54%
10.59%
8.04%
0.27%
2.01%
0.13%
2.01%
0.13%
0.40%
0.80%
0.54%
13.40%
0.94%
3.62%
2.95%
0.67%
7.91%
0.27%
0.67%
0.54%
0.94%
1.47%
0.27%
0.13%
20.24%
0.27%
0.40%
1.07%
0.67%
1.47%
5.09%
1.34%
0.40%
1.21%
0.27%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%
Yuma
Wickenburg
Tucson
Tempe
Somerton
Sierra Vista
Show Low
Sedona
Scottsdale
San Luis
Prescott
Pinetop
Phoenix
Peoria
Payson
Oro Valley
Nogales
Mesa
Marana
Lakeside
Lake Havasu City
Kingman
Glendale
Gilbert
Florence
Flagstaff
El Mirage
Douglas
Cottonwood
Chino Valley
Chandler
Casa Grande
Bullhead City
Avondale
Apache Junction
Aguila
City / Town
Note: Many Flagstaff and Yuma area crashes may have occurred on segments that have either been
turned back to City of Flagstaff or to the City of Yuma, respectively, or on shared‐use paths within ADOT
right‐of‐way.
Figure 9 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Cities and Towns
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 32 Final Report
Figure 10 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Group
Red indicates crash groups where the
bicyclist action is the primary
contributing factor; blue indicates
motorist action is the primary
contributing factor; gray indicates that
primary contributing factor could be
attributed to the bicyclist, motorist, or
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 33 Final Report
Figure 11 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Type
Red indicates crash groups
where the bicyclist action
is the primary contributing
factor; blue indicates
motorist action is the
primary contributing
factor; gray indicates that
primary contributing
factor could be attributed
to the bicyclist, motorist,
or both.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 34 Final Report
Figure 12 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Motorist Action
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 35 Final Report
Figure 13 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 –‐ 2008, Motorist/Bicyclist Action
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 36 Final Report
Figure 14 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Bicycle Facility Presence
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 37 Final Report
Figure 15 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crashes by Roadway Type
(Non‐Interstate State Highways)
Red indicates crash groups
where the bicyclist action is the
primary contributing factor;
blue indicates motorist action is
the primary contributing factor;
gray indicates that primary
contributing factor could be
attributed to the bicyclist,
motorist, or both.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 38 Final Report
Note: Represents crashes that occurred on local streets within ADOT right‐of‐way. An example is a crash
that occurred on an arterial street within an interchange area.
Figure 16 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crashes by Roadway Type
(Local Roadways)
Red indicates crash groups
where the bicyclist action is
the primary contributing
factor; blue indicates
motorist action is the
primary contributing factor.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 39 Final Report
Figure 17 – SHS Motor Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crashes by Roadway Type
(Interstate Frontage Roads and Ramps)
Red indicates crash
groups where the
bicyclist action is
the primary
contributing factor;
blue indicates
motorist action is
the primary
contributing factor.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 40 Final Report
Figure 18 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Motorist Action by
Surrounding Area Development Type
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 41 Final Report
Figure 19 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Bicyclist Location and
Motorist Action
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 42 Final Report
Figure 20 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Types in Large Urbanized Areas
Red indicates crash groups
where the bicyclist action is
the primary contributing
factor; blue indicates
motorist action is the
primary contributing factor;
gray indicates that primary
contributing factor could be
attributed to the bicyclist,
i b h
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 43 Final Report
Figure 21 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Types in Rural Areas
Red indicates crash groups
where the bicyclist action is
the primary contributing
factor; blue indicates
motorist action is the
primary contributing factor.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 44 Final Report
Figure 22 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Types in Small Urban Areas (5,000 – 49,999)
Red indicates crash groups
where the bicyclist action is
the primary contributing
factor; blue indicates
motorist action is the
primary contributing factor;
gray indicates that primary
contributing factor could be
attributed to the bicyclist,
t i t b th
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 45 Final Report
Figure 23 – SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Types in Small Urbanized Areas (50,000 – 199,999)
Red indicates crash groups
where the bicyclist action is
the primary contributing
factor; blue indicates
motorist action is the
primary contributing factor;
gray indicates that primary
contributing factor could be
attributed to the bicyclist,
motorist, or both.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 46 Final Report
2.5 Fatal SHS Motor Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes
Arizona Traffic Accident Reports were obtained for all fatal bicycle crashes that occurred
on the SHS, 2004 – 2008. Twenty‐four (24) fatal crash reports obtained from ADOT
were then entered into PBCAT for analysis. Figure 24 through Figure 28 show crash
statistics for the 24 fatal motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes on state highways in Arizona that
occurred during the analysis period. Key observations are identified in Table 8.
Table 8 – Key Observations from the PBCAT Analysis of Fatal Crashes on the SHS
Figure Key Observations
Figure 24  Bicyclists between the ages of 25 – 54 represent 58% of fatal crashes, and 47% of all
crashes.
Figure 25  Male bicyclists represent 96% of fatal crashes, and just 82% of all crashes.
Figure 26  46% of fatal crashes occurred in rural areas; in contrast, just 1% of all crashes occurred in
rural areas.
 Rural crashes, when they occur, tend to be more severe as higher speeds are generally a
contributing factor.
Figure 27  Motorist overtaking the bicyclist is the dominating crash type.
Figure 28  Bicyclist direction is not as significant a factor in fatal crashes, as a large percentage of fatal
crashes are overtaking crashes.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 47 Final Report
0% 0%
4%
13%
58%
17%
4% 4%
0% 0% 0%
8%
58%
29%
4%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 to 5 6 to 15 16‐19 19‐24 25‐54 55‐80 >80 Unknown
Percentage of Crashes
Driver Bicyclist
Figure 24 – Fatal SHS Bicyclist Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Age
Observation:
Bicyclists between the ages of
25 – 54 represent 58% of fatal
crashes, and 47% of all crashes.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 48 Final Report
Figure 25 – Fatal SHS Bicyclist Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Gender
Observation:
Male bicyclists represent 96%
of fatal crashes, and just 82% of
all crashes.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 49 Final Report
Figure 26 – Fatal SHS Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Type of Area
Observations:
46% of fatal crashes occurred in
rural areas; in contrast, just 1%
of all crashes occurred in rural
areas.
Rural crashes, when they occur,
tend to be more severe, as
higher speeds are generally a
contributing factor.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 50 Final Report
Figure 27 – Fatal SHS Bicyclist Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Crash Type
Observation:
Motorist overtaking the
bicyclist is the dominating crash
type.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 51 Final Report
Figure 28 – Fatal SHS Bicyclist Crashes, 2004 – 2008, Motorist Action vs. Bicyclist
Direction
Observation:
Bicyclist direction is not as
significant a factor in fatal
crashes, as a large percentage
of fatal crashes are overtaking
crashes.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 52 Final Report
3 BSAP GOAL AND EMPHASIS AREAS
The purpose of this chapter is to propose a BSAP Plan safety goal and emphasis areas.
The chapter begins with a review of bicycle safety goals included in other federal and
state plans. A BSAP Goal is subsequently presented. This goal is designed to support
goals identified in other plans and studies.
The chapter concludes with identification of Bicycle Safety Emphasis Areas. Emphasis
Areas are based on the crash analysis presented in Chapter 2.
3.1 Existing Bicycle Safety Goals and Policies of Federal and
State Plans
United States Department of Transportation (DOT)
On March 11, 2010, the United States DOT signed the Policy Statement on “Bicycle and
Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations.” The purpose of this
Policy Statement is to support interconnected bicycling and walking networks to
increase bicycle and pedestrian safety. To accomplish this goal, every transportation
agency is responsible for integrating bicycle and pedestrian facilities into transportation
systems. The Policy Statement recommends the following actions:
 Consider walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation
modes
Photo courtesy of Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 53 Final Report
 Ensure that people of all abilities and ages are considered when
planning and designing facilities
 Go beyond minimum standards
 Integrate bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new,
rehabilitated, and limited‐access bridges
 Collect data on bicycling and walking trips
 Set mode share targets for bicycling and walking and track them over
time
 Remove snow from sidewalks, bike lanes, and shared‐use paths
 Improve non‐motorized facilities during maintenance projects
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The safety mission for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is to improve bicycle
and pedestrian safety by integrating the “4Es” of safety: engineering, education,
enforcement, and emergency services. The FHWA plans to incorporate these “4Es” into
bicycle and pedestrian plans by using a systematic, data‐driven approach.
FHWA documented the following goals in 1994 National Bicycling and Walking Study
(page 2):7
"to double the percentage of total trips made by bicycling and walking in the
United States from 7.9 to 15.8 percent of all travel trips; and to simultaneously
reduce by 10 percent the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured in
traffic crashes."
Most recently, the 2010 National Bicycling and Walking Study 15‐Year Status Report
stated:8
"Though the reductions in pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities have met the goals
set forth in the original study, there is always room for improvement in the area
of safety (but) Creating environments that are safe for bicyclists and pedestrians
of all abilities should continue to be a top priority. Though challenging in the
short term, it is also important to improve the process for reporting and
documenting pedestrian and bicyclist crashes and injuries."
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
In 2007, the Arizona Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Council developed the Arizona
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which identifies a vision and associated goals for
7
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/research_library/PDFs/The%20National%20Bicycling%20and%20Walking%20Study%20Title
%20Page.pdf
8 http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/15-year_report.pdf
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 54 Final Report
reducing crashes in Arizona. The vision of the Arizona SHSP is “zero fatalities on Arizona
roads, your life depends on it” (the Every One Counts vision).
The Every One Counts vision is supported by a state “stretch” goal designed to achieve
clear progress towards the Every One Counts vision. The goal is to reduce the number of
fatalities on Arizona’s roadways by approximately 12 percent by the year 2012. The
base year of comparison is 2007.
The SHSP selected a number of emphasis areas, and sub‐goals and strategies were
developed for each emphasis area.
1. Restraint Usage
2. Speeding
3. Young Drivers
4. Impaired Driving
5. Roadway/Roadside (lane departure and intersections)
6. Data Improvement
Although the SHSP emphasis areas did not focus explicitly on bicycle emphasis areas,
the report stated that all areas of safety will have to be addressed to support a zero
fatality vision. As each emphasis area involves many aspects of crashes, it is likely that
addressing the selected emphasis areas will provide benefits in other areas of traffic
safety, including bicyclists.
3.2 Bicycle Safety Action Plan Goal
Consistent with the safety goals established by the USDOT, FHWA, and Arizona, a BSAP
goal is proposed:
Goal: Reduce the total number of bicycle crashes (fatalities and non‐fatalities) on
Arizona state highways by 12 percent by the year 2018.
Between 2004 and 2008, there were 1,086 bicycle crashes on state highways, equating
to an average of 217 bicycle crashes on Arizona state highways each year. The reduction
in bicycle crashes will be measured by a five‐year average (2014 to 2018), with the years
2004 through 2008 acting as the base years. With a baseline of 217 crashes per year
and a goal of 12‐percent reduction, the target is a five‐year average of 191 crashes per
year, a decrease of 26 crashes per year.
3.3 Bicycle Safety Emphasis Areas
Bicycle Safety Action Plan Emphasis Areas are presented in Table 9. Selection of
emphasis areas was data driven based on the analysis of motor vehicle‐bicycle crash
data and consideration of public input. The emphasis areas support the goal of reducing
bicycle crashes by 12 percent by the year 2018.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 55 Final Report
Table 9 – Emphasis Areas to Improve Bicyclist Safety on the SHS
Emphasis Areas/Goal Justification
Urban Areas:
Reduce the number of bicycle crashes in
urbanized and developed areas (large
urbanized, small urbanized, and small
urban).
The vast majority of focus area crashes occurred in
urbanized areas. Crashes in rural areas represent a
small percentage of crashes.
Signalized Intersections:
Reduce crashes in which bicyclists or
motorists failed to yield at signalized
intersections.
20 percent of focus area crashes are attributable
to bicyclists or motorists failing to yield at
signalized intersections.
Unsignalized Intersections:
Reduce crashes in which bicyclists or
motorists failed to yield at unsignalized
intersections.
14 percent of focus area crashes are attributable
to bicyclists or motorists failing to yield at
unsignalized (sign‐controlled) intersections.
Right Turn Hook Crashes:
Reduce bicycle crashes involving vehicles
making a right turn.
51 percent of focus area crashes occurred while
the motor vehicle was making a right turn. The
vast majority of these crashes occurred in
commercial areas.
Wrong Way Bicyclists:
Reduce crashes in which bicyclists were
riding facing traffic.
52 percent of focus area crashes occurred when
bicyclists were facing traffic. Of these, 37 percent
of crashes occurred while the motor vehicle was
making a right turn.
Sidewalk Riding:
Reduce crashes in which bicyclists were
riding on the sidewalk.
32 percent of focus area crashes involved a
bicyclist riding on the sidewalk. Of these, 21
percent of the crashes involved the driver making
a right turn.
Dark Conditions:
Reduce bicycle crashes that occurred in
dawn, dusk, or dark conditions.
22 percent of focus area bicycle crashes occurred
in dawn, dusk, or dark conditions.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 56 Final Report
4 COUNTERMEASURES TO IMPROVE
BICYCLE SAFETY
SHS priority locations, presented in Section 2.4.2 and 2.4.3, were analyzed in more detail
to identify potential countermeasures that could be considered at each location. The
FHWA BIKESAFE Bicycle Crash Countermeasure Selection System was used to assist in
the identification of potential countermeasures.
Potential countermeasures for each priority location are listed in Appendix B1. For each
priority location, the following information is provided:
 Location ID
 Leading crash type descriptions (defined in Appendix B2)
 Probable contributing causes
 Menu of potential engineering countermeasures
 Education, enforcement, and encouragement countermeasures (EEE)
recommended for further consideration
An example of the information presented in Appendix B1 is provided below.
Sample of SHS Priority Crash Locations Menu of Potential Countermeasures
(as presented in Appendix B1)
Location No. ###
PRIORITY
INTERSECTION
Location No. 39b
Tempe
On Road Intersecting Road Total Crashes
Road A Road B ##
Leading Crash Type
Descriptions
1. Crash Type No. 1
2. Crash Type No. 2
3. Crash Type No. 3
Probable
Contributing Causes
1. Contributing Cause No. 1
2. Contributing Cause No. 2
3. Contributing Cause No. 3
Potential
Countermeasures
1. Potential Countermeasure No. 1
2. Potential Countermeasure No. 2
3. Potential Countermeasure No. 3
Desired Outcomes Engineering, Education, and Enforcement (EEE) Countermeasures for Further Consideration
Bicyclists Motorists Engineers and Planners Law Enforcement
1.
2.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 57 Final Report
5 ACTION PLAN TO IMPROVE BICYCLIST
SAFETY
This chapter proposes an action plan that may be undertaken by ADOT and partner
agencies to improve bicyclist safety on Arizona’s highways. The action plan consists of
the following:
1. Conduct road safety assessments (RSAs) for priority crash locations
2. Modify ADOT plans, policies, and guidelines
3. Install pavement markings or signage to discourage wrong‐way bicycle riding
4. Develop and adopt an Arizona complete streets policy
5. Consider bicycles at single point urban interchanges (SPUIs)
6. Recommend modifications to Arizona crash report forms
7. Develop and implement a bicycle counting program for the SHS
8. Recommend enhancements to Arizona Driver License Manual and Customer
Service Guide
9. Establish connectivity/alternative routes to SHS through local jurisdictions
10. Develop and implement bicyclist and motorist education campaigns
11. Collaborate with law enforcement
12. Recommend changes to Arizona Revised Statutes
13. Implement ADOT Access Management Plan
14. Implement a BSAP evaluation program
5.1 Conduct Road Safety Assessments for Priority Crash
Locations
A menu of potential countermeasures that may be considered at priority locations is
presented in Appendix B1. The potential countermeasures were identified from among
50 engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures contained in the FHWA
BIKESAFE Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System.9
The menu of countermeasures is presented at a planning level, and is based on
countermeasures that are proven to effectively reduce the crash types most frequently
9 http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe/
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 58 Final Report
exhibited at the priority crash location. Examples of potential countermeasures to be
considered at high crash locations include the following:
1. Curb radii reduction (to slow the speed of right‐turning vehicles)
2. Sight distance improvement
3. Intersection signing and marking improvement
4. Bike lane or paved shoulder
5. Driveway improvement/access management
6. Intersection warning treatments (side path/roadway intersection)
A field review of each priority location was not conducted. The next step in
countermeasure development and implementation is to assemble a multidisciplinary
team of traffic engineers, roadway designers, and bicycle professionals to
collaboratively review each location, discuss, and select those countermeasures most
appropriate considering engineering opportunities and constraints.
The ADOT Road Safety Assessment (RSA) program may provide an appropriate forum to
review priority crash locations and develop appropriate recommendations. The RSA
program conducts Road Safety Assessments on state, local, and tribal road facilities. The
ADOT RSA team accepts applications from interested agencies.
It is recommended that the ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program collaborate with the
ADOT RSA team to conduct RSAs for each priority location (19 segments and 15
intersections/interchanges). More information about the ADOT RSA program is
available through the ADOT Traffic Safety Section.10 The RSA team may employ RSA
materials that are specific to bicycle infrastructure such as the Bicycle Road Safety Audit
Guidelines and Prompt list, published by FHWA.11
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Conduct Road Safety Assessments
for Priority Crash Locations
Bicyclists:
 Not applicable
Motorists:
 Not applicable
Engineers and Planners:
 Conduct a Road Safety Assessment (RSA) for each priority crash location
 Develop a program of improvements
10 http://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/9620.asp
11 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 59 Final Report
 Identify opportunities and funding for implementation
Law Enforcement:
 Participate in RSA team
5.2 Modify ADOT Plans, Policies, and Guidelines
The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) reaffirmed their support for bicycle and
pedestrian accommodation on March 15, 2010 (United States Department of
Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations
and Recommendations, March 15, 2010 (emphasis added).12
“Transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements to
their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit. In addition,
DOT encourages transportation agencies to go beyond the minimum
requirements, and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context‐sensitive
facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and
abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate.
Transportation programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages
and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and
people who choose not to drive.
The USDOT/FHWA Policy Statement directs agencies to develop policy statements that
affirm their commitment to improving conditions for bicycling and walking, and to go
beyond minimum design standards in doing so.
“The DOT encourages States, local governments, professional associations,
community organizations, public transportation agencies, and other government
agencies, to adopt similar policy statements on bicycle and pedestrian
accommodation as an indication of their commitment to accommodating
bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the transportation system. In
support of this commitment, transportation agencies and local communities
should go beyond minimum design standards and requirements to create safe,
attractive, sustainable, accessible, and convenient bicycling and walking
networks. Such actions include:
1. Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation
modes: The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and
efficiently move people and goods. Walking and bicycling are efficient
transportation modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal
systems exist, these nonmotorized trips can easily be linked with transit to
significantly increase trip distance. Because of the benefits they provide,
12 http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/bicycle-ped.html
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 60 Final Report
transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and
bicycling as is given to other transportation modes. Walking and bicycling
should not be an afterthought in roadway design.
Arizona State Transportation Board Policies (revised January 4, 2011) also emphasize
ADOT’s commitment to accommodation of bicycles on the SHS.13
4: Multimodal Facilities Policy
2. It is the policy of the Board to facilitate and encourage the development and
use of alternate transportation modes by (emphasis added):
a) Reflecting the integration of all modes of transportation (e.g. motor
vehicles, rail, air, bicycle, pedestrian, and other modes) in all phases of
project planning and development.
c) Directing ADOT to accommodate other modes where possible whenever
constructing, revising, and/or improving a highway by evaluating how
pedestrian, bicycle, transit improvements and inter‐modal transfer
facilities can be incorporated in the design.
7: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Policy
1. It is the policy of the Board to encourage bicycling and walking as viable
transportation modes, and actively work toward improving the
transportation network so that these modes are accommodated, by:
a) Promoting increased use of bicycling and walking, and accommodating
bicycle and pedestrian needs in the planning, design and construction of
transportation facilities alongside state highways.
b) Developing design guidelines and measures that give the roadway
designer flexibility in accommodating the needs of all users of the
transportation facility.
c) Developing design guideline implementation policies that balance the
needs of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
Potential modifications to ADOT policies, consistent with the above directives, are
proposed in the following sections.
13 http://www.azdot.gov/Board/PDF/Board_Policies_010411.pdf
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 61 Final Report
5.2.1 ADOT Bicycle Policy
The ADOT Bicycle Policy, MGT 02‐0114 establishes uniform guidelines for
accommodating bicycle travel on the SHS. The policy was updated in 2007, and
specified a review date of 2010. The review has not been completed. The ADOT Bicycle
Policy has provided significant benefits to bicyclists on the SHS; however, crash analysis
conducted for the BSAP demonstrates that improvements to bicycling safety on the SHS
are needed. Strengthening the ADOT Bicycle Policy can contribute to improved bicyclist
safety on state highways.
It is suggested that an internal ADOT Work Group be established to review the ADOT
Bicycle Policy, and to propose changes that reflect both ADOT State Transportation
Board policies and recent FHWA policy statements as described above. In addition, the
ADOT Bicycle Policy should be consistent with recommendations in the 2012 AASHTO
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition.
Potential revisions to the ADOT Bicycle Policy, for consideration by the internal ADOT
Work Group, are identified below. Potential additions to the Policy are in italics;
deletions are in strikethrough.
POLICY
1. It is ADOT's goal to develop a transportation infrastructure that provides safe and
convenient bicycle access that fosters increased usage by bicyclists. ADOT further
advocates that bicyclists have the right to operate in a legal manner on all roadways
open to public travel, with the exception of fully controlled‐access highways.
Bicyclists may use fully controlled‐access highways in Arizona except where
specifically excluded by regulation and where posted signs give notice of a
prohibition. In support of, and in accord with the foregoing, it is ADOT's policy to:
a. Go beyond minimum requirements to include provisions for bicycle travel in all
new major construction and major reconstruction projects on the state highway
system. New bridge and roadway widening projects are normally considered as
being within the scope of major construction or major reconstruction. Bicycle
accommodation will be considered in pavement preservation, utility, and minor
and spot improvement projects are not included if the cost of accommodations is
reasonable and feasible; at a minimum, existing widths for bicycles will be
maintained. The scoping documents for new construction and reconstruction will
define the parameters for inclusion of bicycle travel.
b. Utilize the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities as the design
guide for roadway features to accommodate bicycles.
14 http://www.azbikeped.org/images/MGT01-2%20Bike%20Policy.pdf
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 62 Final Report
c. Utilize the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 9 as adopted in
accordance with ARS 28‐641 for design of traffic controls for bicycle facilities.
d. Provide shared roadway cross‐section templates as a minimum condition with
new major construction and major reconstruction projects, regardless of the
presence of a shared use path. [Note: this paragraph is deleted because it is now
addressed by bullet point ‘e’].
e. Consider, Provide as a part of major new construction and major reconstruction
in urban areas, a minimum 4‐ft paved shoulder wide curb lanes up to 15' in width
(exclusive of gutter pan) and placement of a stripe at the vehicle lane edge
where appropriate, regardless of the presence of a shared use path. This
decision will be made on a project basis weighing such factors as location,
vehicular traffic, grades, anticipated bicycle usage, and right of way availability.
f. Consider, Provide bicycle lanes for inclusion with major new construction or
major reconstruction when:1) incremental costs for construction and
maintenance are funded by a local agency AND 2) the bicycle lane is included as
a part of a bicycle facilities plan adopted by a local agency, regardless of the
presence of a shared use path.
g. As a part of major new construction and major reconstruction, ADOT will fund
and construct at‐grade or grade separated (including bridges) street or roadway
crossings of state highway system roadways to meet cross section templates
accommodating bicyclists that have been adopted as standard by the local
agency. The limits of construction are determined on a project‐by‐project basis,
are normally within the ADOT right of way, and may include appropriate
transitions to existing roadways outside of ADOT right of way.
h. Accommodate shared use paths within the ADOT right of way when the facilities
are: 1) designed and located in accordance with accepted criteria for a proper
and safe facility AND 2) funded and properly maintained by the local agency.
i. Utilize the ADOT Traffic Engineering PGP # 1030 to designate route sections
where bicycle traffic is prohibited on fully access‐controlled State Highways.
j. Utilize the ADOT Traffic Engineering PGP # 480 for placement of longitudinal
rumble strips on State Highways.
k. Use pavement surfacing materials that provide reasonably smooth surfaces on
travel lanes and shoulders in conjunction with paving projects.
l. Evaluate and consider the impacts of Accommodate bicyclists when restriping
roadways in conjunction with new construction, reconstruction, pavement
preservation and minor spot improvement projects [Note: Consider moving
bullet point ‘l’ to immediately follow bullet point ‘a’ to emphasize bicycle
improvements as part of minor project].
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 63 Final Report
m. Utilize Intergovernmental Agreements to define funding and maintenance
responsibilities with local governments for bicycle facilities within State highway
right‐of‐way.
2. It is ADOT's Policy not to: [Note: as policy content is approved, consider rephrasing so
that it contains positive statements, followed by a list of exceptions]
a. Reduce existing travel lane widths on higher speed, free flowing, principal
arterials to accommodate bicycle traffic unless the need is justified to allow
provision for bicyclists, and supported by a traffic study. Travel lane widths may
be considered for reduction to accommodate bicycles under interrupted‐flow
operating conditions at lower posted speeds (45 mph or less). Narrower lane
widths on lower speed (45 mph or less) facilities are normally adequate and have
some advantages.15 Concurrence by the State Traffic Engineer and the Assistant
Engineer, Roadway Engineering Group are required.
b. Sign or designate bikeways on any roadways on the State Highway System or
roads on State owned right of way without concurrence of the District Engineer
and State Bicycle Coordinator.
c. Sign or designate sidewalks as bicycle routes or bikeways.
d. Use tTransportation enhancement Alternative funds for maintenance of bicycle
facilities.
e. Mark or sign sidewalks or shared‐use paths on State right of way parallel and
adjacent to roadways for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists per ADOT
Traffic Engineering PGP # 1031.
3. It is ADOT's policy to require written approval from the State Traffic Engineer and the
Assistant State Engineer, Roadway Engineering Group in consultation with the State
Bicycle Coordinator for any variations or exceptions to this policy.
5.2.2 ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines
Modifications to ADOT, Roadway Engineering Group,16 Roadway Design Guidelines may
be considered to improve the routine accommodation of bicycles on the State Highway
System. Potential modifications are listed below. Additions are indicated in italics;
deletions are shown in strikethrough.
15 The Florida Department of Transportation allows travel lanes to be narrowed to 11 feet on the state highway system
regardless of speed if the purpose is to accommodate a bicycle facility. Travel lanes can be narrowed to 10 feet if the
design speed is 35 miles per hour. Refer to FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Volume I, Chapter 25.4.5; accessible at:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/PPMManual/2012/Volume1/Chap25.pdf.
16 http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/Roadway_Engineering/Roadway_Design/index.asp
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 64 Final Report
209.1 – Climbing Lanes, paragraph 7
Also see the design memorandum entitled “A Policy on the Design of Passing Lanes and
Climbing Lanes” on the Roadway Design website. If bicyclists are utilizing the facility, a A
minimum shoulder width of 4 ft or more should be provided to accommodate bicyclists.
209.2 – Passing Lanes, paragraph 8
For adding passing lanes to existing roadways, see the design memorandum entitled “A
Policy on the Design of Passing Lanes and Climbing Lanes” on the Roadway Design
website. If bicyclists are utilizing the facility, a A minimum shoulder width of 4 ft or more
should be provided to accommodate bicyclists.
302.4 – Shoulder Width
The shoulder width given in Table 302.4 shall be the minimum continuous usable width
of paved shoulder.
Within Table 302.4, Paved Shoulder Width, Paved Shoulder Width (ft) (In Direction of
Travel), Right, change widths specified for Urban multi‐lane divided, Urban multi‐lane
undivided, Acceleration lanes, and Frontage roads (2‐lane) from 4‐ft to 6‐ft.
306.4 – Urban Cross Sections, paragraph 3:
A) Urban Section UA: This section should be used on highways for the initial
construction to four lanes. This section is normally used as the urban extension of a
divided rural or fringe‐urban highway. Use of this section should be based, in part, on a
consideration of the access requirements of adjacent properties. The section may not be
appropriate for areas of heavy strip development. On a project‐by‐project basis, Provide
a minimum 4‐ft paved shoulder, exclusive of curb and gutter, may be considered and
place a stripe at the vehicle edge line. to accommodate bicycle usage. Factors to be
considered include location, vehicular traffic, grades, anticipated bicycle usage, and right
of way availability.
B) Urban Section UB: This section should be used where an existing four‐lane undivided
highway is being widened or where existing strip development requires the continuous
two‐way left‐turn lane. On a project‐by‐project basis, Provide a minimum 4‐ft paved
shoulder a 15 ft outside lane, exclusive of curb and gutter, may be considered to
accommodate bicycle usage when weighing the factors listed in Section UA.
E) Non‐Standard Sections: The following sections can be utilized on a very limited and
restricted basis, subject to specific prior approval of the Assistant State Engineer,
Roadway Engineering Group. The approval is required prior to development of the Final
Project Assessment or Final Design Concept Report.
Included are:
 Three lanes. Use of a three‐lane section is restricted to local traffic or non‐through
routes; i.e., routes with little or no external through traffic, which have
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 65 Final Report
very restrictive existing right‐of‐way. Further, the section is limited to application
in small urban areas, and where implementation will constitute final, ultimate
construction. The roadway will be 44 ft wide with two 12‐ft through lanes, a 12‐
ft turn lane, and 4‐ft non‐curbed shoulders on each side. With curb and gutter, a
4‐ft paved shoulder 14 ft wide outside lane exclusive of curb and gutter is
acceptable to accommodate bicycle traffic.
408.11 – Right Turn Channelization, paragraph 13
D) Bicycle Buffer: Where bicycles are expected to be prevalent, a A buffer area between
the through lane and the right‐turn lane should be provided. Figure 408.11A shows the
bicycle buffer with a wide curb lane. The buffer area is formed by the extension of the
through lane and the face of curb line. Figure 408.11B shows the bicycle buffer for non‐curb
and gutter sections. The buffer may be omitted where bicycle traffic or right‐turn
traffic is expected to be infrequent.
5.2.3 ADOT Safety Action Plan, Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and
FHWA Oversight Agreement
ADOT Safety Action Plan (ASAP)
The ASAP (2009) provides suggestions to enhance ADOT’s focus on its road safety goals
and to empower the agency to take a leadership role in addressing safety issues
throughout the state of Arizona. The ASAP was developed based on more than 30
interviews with ADOT staff in the Intermodal Transportation Division, Multimodal
Planning Division, Motor Vehicle Division, and other divisions, as well as safety staff
from related agencies.
The ASAP identified bicycles as an important safety consideration in the following
recommendation (ASAP, page 2‐9):
Progress would be maximized by encouraging staff to go “above and beyond” traditional
engineering practices. Crashes have many factors, which must be considered in
developing safety countermeasures, including:
 Demographic factors: e.g., young, old, ethnic groups
 Behaviors: e.g., impairment, fatigue, use of occupant protection
 Crash types: e.g., roadway departure, intersection, multi‐vehicle,
single vehicle, vehicle type
 Modes: e.g., passenger car, pedestrian, bicycle, heavy truck,
motorcycle
It is recommended that future updates to the ASAP be coordinated with findings of the
ADOT BSAP. Bicyclist safety can be incorporated throughout the ASAP. Potential
considerations include:
 Incorporate bicycle fatalities and injuries into the “Safety Dash Board”
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 66 Final Report
 Include bicycle representation in the proposed ADOT Safety
Management Team
 Include bicycle safety considerations in the project scoping of all
projects
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
The Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan17 was completed in 2007. While bicycles are
not specifically identified as an emphasis area of the SHSP, the SHSP addresses bicycling
through the following:
 Bicycle safety is addressed through multiple emphasis areas,
including:
- Selection of lane departure fatalities and intersection fatalities would also
address 46 percent of Arizona’s bicycle fatalities and serious injuries (page 19).
 An Intersection Strategy and Countermeasure is to improve the
operation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and promote the
implementation of the Statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan
(pages 93‐94). The SHSP recommends that bicycle and pedestrian
facilities be improved at intersections with high numbers of
pedestrian and bicycle fatalities.
Findings of the BSAP may be considered during the next update of the SHSP.
FHWA and ADOT Stewardship and Oversight Agreement for Arizona
The FHWA and ADOT Stewardship and Oversight Agreement for Arizona (March 2010)18
includes performance measures associated with the performance of the Federal Aid
Highway Program in Arizona. These performance measures are developed, reassessed,
and/or revised as necessary on an annual basis. The Agreement currently includes
performance measures for pedestrian safety, including the number of pedestrian
fatalities (current year + four‐year history), and the number of SHS pedestrian fatalities
(current year + four‐year history).
It is recommended that bicycle safety performance measures be considered for
inclusion in the Oversight Agreement:
 Number of statewide bicyclist fatalities (current year + 4 year history).
 Number of SHS bicyclist fatalities (current year + 4 year history).
Inclusion of bicycle safety data in the Oversight Agreement will demonstrate bicycle
safety trends both statewide and on the SHS.
17 http://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/9620.asp
18 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/stewtoc.htm
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 67 Final Report
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Modify ADOT Plans, Policies, and
Guidelines
Bicyclists:
 Not applicable
Motorists:
 Not applicable
Engineers and Planners:
 Review ADOT Bicycle Policy and Roadway Design Guidelines
 Incorporate language into ADOT Bicycle Policy and Roadway Design Guidelines to
strengthen the accommodation of bicycling on state highways, consistent with
USDOT Policy Statement
 Consider bicycles in updates to the ASAP, SHSP, and FHWA and ADOT Stewardship
and Oversight Agreement
Law Enforcement:
 Not applicable
5.3 Install Pavement Markings or
Signage to Discourage Wrong-Way
Bicycle Riding
Wrong‐way bicycle riding was identified as a common
contributing factor to motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes.
Potential countermeasures to reduce wrong‐way
bicycle riding, during which the bicyclist is riding while
facing traffic, include pavement markings and signage.
Currently, ADOT Bicycle Policy is not to mark shoulders
as bicycle lanes unless funded by the local agency and
with concurrence of the District Engineer. It is
suggested that ADOT allow pavement markings and/or
signage in or adjacent to shoulders that meet
minimum widths for bike lanes (based on AASHTO’s
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities),
particularly those located at BSAP priority locations. These pavement markings and/or
signage would help indicate the appropriate direction of travel for bicyclists.
Potential signing and marking alternatives include:
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 68 Final Report
 Install a bicycle lane symbol with a directional arrow. Ideally, a
directional arrow would be placed at the beginning and end of each
block. Currently, ADOT policy does not allow for the signing and
marking of shoulders as bicycle lanes unless funded and maintained
by local agencies. This option would require modification of ADOT
Bicycle Policy, ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines, and ADOT Traffic
Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures (PGP), to allow
pavement markings to be placed in wide shoulders.
 Install “Bicycle Wrong Way” (Section 9B.07, R5‐1b) and ‘Ride with
Traffic” (R9‐3cP) signs, consistent with the MUTCD.
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Install Pavement Markings or
Signage to Discourage Wrong‐Way Bicycle Riding
Bicyclists:
 Follow laws and safe practices by riding with traffic
Motorists:
 Not applicable
Engineers and Planners:
 Review ADOT Bicycle Policy, Roadway Design Guidelines, and Traffic Engineering
PGP
 Install “Bicycle Wrong Way, Ride With Traffic” signs on state highway segments that
exhibit a high degree of wrong‐way bicycle riding crash types
 Develop a plan to obtain ADOT approval to install bicycle lane pavement markings
on wide shoulders
Law Enforcement:
 Enforce wrong‐way bicycling riding on the roadway
5.4 Develop and Adopt Arizona Complete Streets Policy
State highways often serve as a “Main Street” in many of Arizona’s urbanized rural
communities. These state highways serve multiple users, including vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists; however, many state highways through rural urbanized
areas are designed primarily for motor vehicles. Improving state highways to
accommodate all users is essential to improving bicyclist safety. Roadways that serve all
users are often referred to as “Complete Streets.”
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 69 Final Report
It is recommended that ADOT develop and implement a Complete Streets Policy that
addresses accommodation of all roadway users on state highways, particularly through
urbanized rural communities and the crossing of relatively wide state highways
including interchanges and large intersections.
An ADOT Complete Streets Policy may include language similar to the following:
The State Department of Transportation shall provide for the needs of drivers, public
transportation vehicles and patrons, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities in
all planning, programming, design, construction, reconstruction, retrofit, operations,
and maintenance activities and products. The Department shall view all transportation
improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers
in Arizona and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of
the transportation system.19
It is recommended that an ADOT Complete Streets Policy consider the following:20
 Direct roadways to be designed and operated to be safe and
accessible for all users, including: bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users,
and motorists of all ages and abilities, including children, youth,
families, older adults, and individuals with disabilities.
 Apply to all state highways, recognizing that roadway design should
be appropriate to the function and context of the facility, and should
be sensitive to the surrounding land use and community character
(e.g., rural, suburban, or urban context). The policy should recognize
that complete streets elements will differ in rural and urban areas.
 Recognize the local context and that the needs vary in urban,
suburban, and rural settings. The policy could specifically define
applicability limits (e.g., within one mile of an urban area).
 Be applicable in almost all transportation projects and phases,
including any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance,
alteration, or repair of streets, bridges, or other portions of the
transportation network.
 Recognize that there is no requirement to immediately retrofit (this
serves to alleviate concerns that a policy would mandate immediate
retrofits on all existing roads).
 Include minimal number of exceptions. Example exceptions are
where non‐motorized users are prohibited, or there is an irrefutable
absence of present and future need, or the project places “excessive”
or “disproportionate” costs compared to need or probable use.
19 www.completestreets.org
20 http://www.completestreets.org/changing-policy/model-policy/
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 70 Final Report
Exceptions should be rare, documented and publicly available, and
approved at a high level.
According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, as of May 2012, 26 states have
adopted some form of state‐level Complete Streets policy (legislation, design guidelines,
executive order, and/or internal policy) aimed at converting street networks into
complete streets. "Complete Streets Policy Analysis 2010: A Story of Growing Strength,"
stated:
“States have a leadership role to play in providing guidance on Complete Streets.
Localities look to the state to provide examples of policy language, but also how
to effectively create Complete Streets. Outreach from the New Jersey and
Wisconsin DOTs [has] helped not only their district departments, but also locals,
understand the more technical and process details to Complete Streets."
The status of Complete Streets adoption throughout the United States is shown in
Figure 29. In total, 352 regional and local jurisdictions, 26 states, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have adopted policies or have made written
commitment to do so.
The State of California adopted state legislation and developed an internal DOT policy
through California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Deputy Directive Number
DD‐64‐R1, entitled “Complete Streets ‐ Integrating the Transportation System.” 21 The
internal policy provides a policy statement, definitions/background, responsibilities
regarding implementing complete streets, and an applicability statement. Caltrans
followed up by developing a guide for Complete Intersections.22
Within Arizona, the Maricopa Association of Governments recently developed the MAG
Complete Streets Design Guide. The City of Scottsdale is the only Arizona jurisdiction
with a Complete Streets policy.
21 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets.html
22 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 71 Final Report
Source: http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/resources/cs‐policyanalysis.pdf
Figure 29 – Nationwide Status of Complete Streets Policy Development
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Develop and Adopt a Complete
Streets Policy
Bicyclists:
Not applicable
Motorists:
Not applicable
Engineers and Planners:
 Develop an internal DOT policy that would be approved/signed by ADOT State
Engineer
Law Enforcement:
Not applicable
5.5 Consider Bicycles at Single Point Urban Interchanges
(SPUIs)
The BSAP identified that a significant number of motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes occur at
interchanges.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 72 Final Report
Interchanges can present many challenges for bicyclists. Ramp angles and design
speeds encourage drivers to primarily focus on vehicular traffic and provide insufficient
attention to bicyclists and pedestrians. Turning roadways for on‐ramps and off‐ramps
require roadway markings and signage for bicyclists and pedestrians to be frequently
discontinuous through interchange areas. As stated in the AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999):
“Turning roadways provided for interchange ramp ingress and egress often require
bicyclists on the cross street to perform merging, weaving, or crossing maneuvers with
ramp vehicles. These conflict points are made challenging when a wide disparity exists
between traffic on the ramp and cross street bicycle traffic crossing the ramp…. If a bike
lane or route must
traverse an interchange
area, these
intersections or conflict
points should be
designed to limit the
conflict areas or to
eliminate unnecessary
uncontrolled ramp
connections to urban
roadways.”
Interchanges can better
accommodate bicycles
by constructing ramp
angles at 90
degree/right angles,
designing exit ramps for
low‐speed ramp‐cross
street intersections,
limiting free flow right‐turn
lanes to one lane, and continuing cross‐street shoulder widths through the
interchange area.
Six of the 16 high priority intersection/interchange locations are single point urban
interchanges (SPUI). An example of a SPUI (I‐17 and Northern Avenue) is shown in
Figure 30. SPUIs are similar to diamond interchanges except that in a SPUI, the two
intersections of a diamond interchange are combined into a single intersection, allowing
opposing left‐turn movements. SPUIs can provide improved operations and reduced
right‐of‐way requirements compared to other interchange forms; however, their design
can be challenging for bicyclists due to a number of considerations, including:
Figure 30 – Example of SPUI Design on I‐17 at Northern
Avenue
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 73 Final Report
 Due to the large intersection area, bicyclists may need more green
and all‐red clearance time before opposing traffic proceeds
 The presence of bicycles, due to their slower speeds, may reduce the
capacity of the SPUI, thereby negating the benefits of the SPUI over
other design alternatives
A number of states have adopted SPUI guidelines that consider bicyclists. For example,
Caltrans has developed guidelines to better accommodate bicyclists, as described in a
Memorandum dated June 15, 2001, entitled, “Single Point Interchange Planning, Design,
and Operations Guidelines.” Caltrans refers to SPUIs as Single Point Interchanges (SPI).
An example of a bicycle‐friendly SPUI design is shown in Figure 31, which is from the
Oregon Department of Transportation, Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update.
ODOT provides the following guidance regarding SPUI designs to make them more
accessible for bicyclists and pedestrians:23
“The Single Point Urban Interchange…can be made accessible to pedestrians and
bicyclists by following these principles:
 Each vehicular movement should be clearly defined and controlled
 Exit and entry ramps should be designed at close to right angles
 Pedestrian crossings should be visible and easily identifiable
 Pedestrians should not be required to cross more than one or two
lanes at a time
 Bicyclists should be able to proceed through the intersection in a
straight line
 Motor vehicles merging to and from freeway on/off ramps should be
required to yield to through cyclists
The SPUI works reasonably well for pedestrians and bicyclists if the intersection is that
of a local thoroughfare and a freeway; pedestrian and bicyclists need to be
accommodated only on the cross‐street, not the freeway. If a SPUI is used for the grade‐separated
intersection of two surface streets, which accommodate pedestrians and
cyclists, then the SPUI design is not effective, as pedestrians and cyclists on one of the
streets will be in a freeway‐like environment, with free‐flowing exiting and merging
ramps.”
23 http://cms.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/pages/planproc.aspx
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 74 Final Report
Figure 31 – State of Oregon Bicycle‐Friendly SPUI Design
Source: Oregon Department of Transportation
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Consider Bicycle Accommodation at
Interchanges
Bicyclists:
 Be particularly alert when crossing through interchanges
Motorists:
 Be alert for bicycles at interchanges and intersections
Engineers and Planners:
 Design interchanges to accommodate bicycles
Law Enforcement:
 Not applicable
5.6 Recommend Modifications to Arizona Crash Report Form
The analysis of bicycle crashes, as documented in Chapter 2, employed the Pedestrian
Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT). The use of PBCAT enabled the study team to
identify a crash type for each motor vehicle‐bicycle crash. However, the PBCAT analysis
required compilation of data beyond that available in the Arizona Crash Report. In
many cases, the data was readily available through roadway inventory databases. In
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 75 Final Report
other cases, the data was not readily available and ideally would have been provided by
the police officer at the time of the crash.
The Arizona Crash Report form was updated in 2009; however, the new format was not
in use during the BSAP analysis period, which analyzed crashes that occurred between
2004 and 2008. While the 2009 Arizona Crash Report form represents a significant
improvement over its predecessor, additional enhancements to the form with respect
to bicycle crashes would allow improved analysis of bicycle crashes.
It is suggested that the Arizona Crash Report form be thoroughly reviewed to identify
modifications and enhancements to improve data collection regarding bicycles. Our
review of the Arizona Crash Report form identifies that the data items described in
Table 10 could be included or enhanced in the Arizona Crash Report form.
Perhaps as important as new data items is emphasizing the importance of
comprehensively completing the existing data fields in the Arizona Crash Report form.
The BSAP crash analysis demonstrated that many of the data fields were left
incomplete, particularly as they related to the bicyclist.
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Recommend Modifications to the
Arizona Crash Report Form
Bicyclists:
 Not applicable
Motorists:
 Not applicable
Engineers and Planners:
 Develop a process to modify the Arizona Crash Report Form to include additional
modifications and enhancements when reporting crashes involving bicycles.
Law Enforcement:
 Comprehensively complete the existing data fields in the Arizona Crash Report form.
When bicyclists are involved, include additional details as appropriate in the
narrative.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 76 Final Report
Table 10 – Potential Modifications to Arizona Crash Report Form
Arizona
Crash
Report
Data Item
Data Description Discussion Recommendation for Arizona
Crash Report
4dd Safety Devices The current definition in the Crash
Report form states that “helmet
used…is not used for non‐motorists
such as bicycle and other pedal cycle
riders and vehicle occupants other
than motorized cycles.”
The Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria, Third Edition (2008)
(MMUCC) recommends including a
non‐motorist Safety Equipment (e.g.,
helmets, lighting, etc.) data field to
evaluate the effectiveness of non‐motorist
safety equipment, and to
calculate usage statistics to inform
development and evaluation of
educational countermeasures.
 Include a new data item
representing non‐motorized
safety equipment (helmet,
lighting, reflective clothing,
etc.)
 Alternatively, a pedalcycle /
bicycle supplement could be
developed similar to
supplements for fatal crash,
truck/bus, and occupants (10
or more)
23 Traffic Unit
Maneuver/Action
 17: Crossing
Road
Data item title does not emphasize to
the reporting police officer that this
data item also applies to bicyclists
Change data item title to:
17: Crossing Road: Pedestrian Only
Traffic Unit
Maneuver/Action
 18: Walking
With Traffic
Data item title does not emphasize to
the reporting police officer that this
data item also applies to bicyclists
Change data item title to “Non‐
Motorist Walking/Riding With
Traffic”
Traffic Unit
Maneuver/Action
 19: Walking
Against Traffic
Data item title does not emphasize to
the reporting police officer that this
data item also applies to bicyclists
Change data item title to “Non‐
Motorist Walking/Riding Against
Traffic”
‐ Presence/Type of
Bicycle Facility
This data is currently not collected in
the Arizona Crash Report Form. This
data item is recommended in the
MMUCC, which states that this data
is needed to:
 Determine usage and safety of
bicycle facilities.
Add data field for presence/type of
bicycle facility.
MMUCC defines this data item as:
Any road, path, or way which is
specifically designated as being
open to bicycle travel, regardless of
whether such facilities are
designated for the exclusive use of
bicycles or are to be shared with
other transportation modes.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 77 Final Report
Table 10 – Potential Modifications to Arizona Crash Report Form (continued)
Arizona
Crash
Report Data
Item
Data
Description
Discussion Recommendation for Arizona
Crash Report
‐ Presence/Type of
Bicycle Facility
(continued)
 Determine the location of
bicycle crashes in relation to a
bicycle facility.
This data is important for
ascertaining the relative safety
performance of various types/classes
of bike paths to guide future
design/operation decisions (MMUCC)
Subfields include:
1) Facility: None, Wide Curb Lane,
Marked Bicycle Lane,
Unmarked Paved Shoulder,
Separate Bicycle Path/Trail,
Unknown
2) Signed Bicycle Route: Yes, No,
Unknown, Not Applicable
‐
Widths of Lane(s)
and Shoulder(s)
This data is currently not collected in
the Arizona Crash Report Form.
This data item is recommended in
the MMUCC, which states that it is
important to monitor the association
of lane/shoulder widths and the
frequency of crashes.
Add data field for widths of the
lane(s) and shoulder(s). MMUCC
defines this data item as:
Widths (in feet) of the lane(s) and of
the shoulder(s) where crash
occurred. Data attributes would
include the width of the lane(s) and
of the shoulder(s) at the location of
the crash. Suggested data fields are:
 Lane Width
 Right Shoulder Width
 Left Shoulder Width
‐ Adjacent
development type
Functional class of the roadway is
recommended in the MMUCC, to be
added through linking of the crash
data with the roadway inventory
data. The MMUCC states that
“knowledge of land use is needed in
analyzing crashes as part of a
network analysis.”
Add data field to describe adjacent
land uses. Suggested data fields
are: Residential, commercial,
industrial, retail, recreational, mixed
use, other, unknown.
‐ Mainline number of
lanes at intersection
This data item is recommended in
the MMUCC in order to accurately
describe the intersection, and to
identify associations of crashes with
roadway/intersection width.
The MMUCC defines this data field
as:
Number of through lanes on the
mainline approaches of an
intersection, including all lanes with
through movement (through and
left‐turn, or through and right‐turn)
but not exclusive turn lanes.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 78 Final Report
5.7 Develop and Implement a Bicycle Counting Program
The USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and
Recommendations, March 15, 2010 24 includes the following:
“Recommended Actions…should include (emphasis added):
 Collecting data on walking and biking trips: The best way to improve
transportation networks for any mode is to collect and analyze trip
data to optimize investments.…This data gap can be overcome by
establishing routine collection of nonmotorized trip information.
Communities that routinely collect walking and bicycling data are able
to track trends and prioritize investments to ensure the success of
new facilities.
 Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and tracking
them over time: A byproduct of improved data collection is that
communities can establish targets for increasing the percentage of
trips made by walking and bicycling”
Similar to most states, agencies, and jurisdictions, ADOT lacks a program to routinely
collect bicycle and pedestrian count data. Development of a bicycle counting program
can provide meaningful data to ADOT to be used to track trends and to prioritize
investments on state highways. A bicycle counting program may utilize automatic
bicycle counters. Automatic bicycle counters can provide counts of bicyclists in high
crash segment locations and can provide support for expenditures on new bicycle
facilities and bicycle policies. Bicycle counters at high crash locations will provide
information to compute an exposure rate. Currently, an automatic bicycle counter is
being tested on SR 179 near Sedona, Arizona. Consideration should be given to
expanding the bicycle counters to BSAP high‐priority segments to assist in determining
exposure rates for bicyclists. A bicycle count program could include a data collection
schedule, prioritization of locations, evaluation of information, and how the information
can be used.
24 http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/bicycle-ped.html
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 79 Final Report
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Develop and Implement a Bicycle
Counting Program for the SHS
Bicyclists:
 Not applicable
Motorists:
 Not applicable
Engineers and Planners:
 Develop a bicycle counting program to measure ridership on the SHS, and in
particular on BSAP high‐priority segments.
Law Enforcement:
 Not applicable
5.8 Recommend Enhancements to Arizona Driver License
Manual and Customer Service Guide
In the web‐based survey conducted for the BSAP, multiple survey respondents cited a
need for increased public knowledge regarding bicycle laws in Arizona and bicyclists’
rights on state highways. This is confirmed through the crash analysis, which
demonstrated that both motorists and bicyclists frequently exhibit unsafe behaviors
that are correctable through education.
Two actions are recommended:
1. Collaborate with Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) to include additional mandatory
questions on the Arizona Driver License test regarding bicyclist laws and bicyclist
rights. The driver’s license test should include a question on the minimum safe
distance when passing a bicycle traveling in the same direction. A limitation in
using the driver’s license test as an education mechanism is that Arizona drivers’
licenses expire on the 65th birthday; as such, drivers rarely are required to take a
test. Other mechanisms, such as defensive driver training or traffic safety
diversion programs should be utilized.
2. Collaborate with MVD to revise the Arizona Driver License Manual and Customer
Service Guide to emphasize bicycle safety.
Table 11 shows suggested revisions or enhancements to the Arizona Driver License
Manual and Customer Service Guide published by the ADOT MVD.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 80 Final Report
Table 11 – Potential Modifications to Arizona Driver License Manual (March 2012)
MVD License Manual
(March 2012)
Current Text Suggested Revision or
Enhancement
Page 25 – Positioning
Vehicle‐Cushion of Space
Around Your Vehicle
When sharing a lane with a bicycle, allow
at least 3 feet for clearance between you
and the bicycle. Moderate your speed. At
high speeds, your vehicle may cause a
gust of wind that could knock the bicyclist
to the ground. Be alert for the bicycle
swerving.
Add illustration of three foot clearance
to emphasize.
Page 28 – Roundabouts Always yield to pedestrians and bicyclists
that are crossing the road.
Bicyclists – Be aware of traffic rules or
walk your bike and use the crosswalks.
Add depictions of cars yielding for
bicyclists and pedestrians in the
roundabout.
Page 44 – Right Turns‐ Right
on red
Always yield the right‐of‐way to
pedestrians, bicyclists and of course,
oncoming traffic.
Unless signs direct you otherwise, turn
into the right lane of the road you enter.
Provide an illustration showing
potential conflicts regarding bicyclists.
Page 46 – Sharing the Road
with a Bike
Bicyclists must obey the same traffic laws
as drivers of vehicles, and they have the
right‐of‐way under the same conditions
as motorists.
Motorists should be alert for bicyclists
along the roadway because cyclists are
often difficult to see. Extra caution is
necessary. Motorists are required to
allow a minimum safe distance of 3 feet
when passing a bicycle traveling in the
same direction.
At night, you should dim your headlights
for bicyclists.
Drivers should be prepared for a bicyclist
swerving. Although bicyclists must ride
with the flow of traffic and stay near the
right side of the road, they can legally
move left for several reasons, such as:
 Turning left.
 Avoiding hazards.
 Passing pedestrians or vehicles.
 If the lane in which the person is
operating a bicycle is too narrow for
a bicycle and motor vehicle to travel
safely side‐by‐side.
Add a graphic depicting the 3‐foot rule
to emphasize it.
Highlight the 3‐foot rule in text, and
place it in a separate paragraph.
Add text to fourth bullet to read:
 If the lane in which the person is
operating a bicycle is too narrow
for a bicycle and motor vehicle to
travel safely side‐by‐side. In this
case, the bicyclist may use as
much of the lane as needed to
discourage unsafe passing.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 81 Final Report
Table 11 – Potential Modifications to Arizona Driver License Manual (March 2012)
(continued)
MVD License Manual
(March 2012)
Current Text Suggested Revision or
Enhancement
Page 46 – Sharing the Road
with a Bike (continued)
Important rules for bicyclists:
 Do not carry more persons than the
design of the bicycle permits.
 Do not ride more than two side‐by
side.
 Ride as near to the right side of the
road as possible.
 Use proper hand signals.
 Do not bicycle under the influence
of drugs or alcohol — it is illegal.
 When riding at night, have a white
head lamp visible from 500 feet, and
a rear reflector.
 Ride as near to the right side of
the road as possible Ride on the
right side of the roadway in the
same direction as other traffic.
(Note: This is a much more
important safety message and
directly addresses the #1 safety
risk ‐ wrong‐way bicycling. This
also avoids having to list the
exceptions noted above, which
would be needed if the text refers
to "as far to the right as practical"
{NEVER "as far as possible"!})
For more information and tips on
bicycling on Arizona roads and streets,
see "Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts",
at
http://www.azbikeped.org/azbss.htm
Page 65 –Test Questions 11. What are the rights of a person riding
a bicycle in the street?
Add questions –
Question: When passing a bicycle
traveling in the same direction, what is
the minimum legal passing distance
between the motorist and the
bicyclist?
Answer: not less than 3 feet
Question: Although bicyclists must ride
with the flow of traffic and as close as
practicable to the right‐hand curb or
edge of the roadway, in which
situations can they legally move left?
Answers:
a. When turning left
b. To avoid a hazard
c. If the lane in which the person is
operating a bicycle is too narrow for a
bicycle and a vehicle to travel safety
side by side within the lane.
d. All of the above.
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 82 Final Report
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Recommend Enhancements and
Revisions to Arizona Driver License Manual and Exam
Bicyclists:
 Not applicable
Motorists:
 Not applicable
Engineers and Planners:
 Collaborate with MVD to modify the Driver License Manual and Exam, to particularly
reflect Arizona’s 3‐foot law.
Law Enforcement:
 Collaborate with MVD to modify the Driver License Manual and Exam to reflect
Arizona’s 3‐foot law.
5.9 Establish Connectivity and Alternative Routes to State
Highways through Local Jurisdictions
Bicyclists do not stop riding at jurisdictional boundaries, nor when ownership of a road
changes from a city to ADOT. However, in many cases on Arizona’s highways,
discontinuities exist in the bicycling network as a result of roadway ownership
boundaries, including discontinuation of bicycle lanes or narrowing of wide shoulders
upon entering ADOT right‐of‐way. Furthermore, many Arizona state highways, as they
are designed for high‐speed motor vehicle traffic, are uncomfortable facilities for
bicyclists, even when the state highway passes through the center of town and serves
more of a “main street” role than a state highway role.
While it is recommended that ADOT continue to improve accommodation of bicyclists
on state highways, it is suggested that local cities and towns also develop bicycle
alternatives to the state highway; for example:
 A local street that runs parallel to a state highway could be marked and
improved as a bicycle route. Signs directing the bicyclists to the local parallel
bicycle route would lessen the dependency of bicyclists on the SHS. Alternative
routes may have fewer driveways and lower traffic volumes that are more
conducive to bicycling.
 Additional mid‐mile crossings of interstates and freeways would separate
bicyclists from the traffic interchange area. In the Phoenix area, mid‐mile
collector and arterial streets could be constructed to cross I‐17 to provide an
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 83 Final Report
alternative to the traffic interchanges located at the mile arterials. Currently,
particularly north of I‐10, bicyclists who desire to cross I‐17 are limited to
opportunities at the traffic interchanges and a pedestrian overpass at Maryland
Avenue. It is noteworthy that three of 15 high‐priority intersection/interchange
locations are along I‐17. Twelve other locations on I‐17 were also identified as
experiencing a high number of motor vehicle‐bicycle crashes.
Summary of Roles of Proposed Countermeasure: Establish Alternative Parallel
Bicycling Routes
Bicyclists:
 Coordinate with local agencies to identify alternative parallel routes to the SHS that
are more comfortable and conducive to bicycling
Motorists:
 Not applicable
Engineers and Planners:
 Identify alternative parallel routes to the SHS that are more comfortable and
conducive to bicycling; do not neglect bicycle accommodation on the SHS.
 Identify opportunities to construct additional crossings of freeways and interstates
to provide bicyclists with alternatives to traffic interchanges.
Law Enforcement:
 Not applicable
5.10 Develop and Implement Bicyclist and Motorist Education
Campaigns
Education of motorists and bicyclists is an essential element to reducing motor vehicle‐bicycle
crashes on state highways. Recommendations to educate bicyclists and motorist
are listed below.
Integrate BSAP into ADOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Materials
The BSAP emphasis areas can be incorporated into educational programs for motorists
and bicyclists, such as the ADOT “Be a Roll Model” campaign.25
25 http://www.azbikeped.org/education.html#campaigneducation
091374036 ADOT Bicycle Safety Action Plan
September 2012 84 Final Report
Three BSAP emphasis areas in which education can play a significant role are listed in
Table 12. Potential safety campaign messages that can be incorporated into
educational campaigns are provided in Table 12.
Table 12 – BSAP Emphasis Areas and Safety Campaign Messages
BSAP Emphasis Areas Safety Campaign Messages/Strategy
Wrong Way Bicyclists:
Reduce crashes in which the bicyclist was riding facing
traffic.
Campaign can explain the danger of wrong‐way bicycling
riding.
Sidewalk Riding:
Reduce crashes where the bicyclist was riding on the
sidewalk.
Campaign can show potential issues and hazards of
bicyclists riding on the sidewalk.
Dark Conditions:
Reduce bicycle crashes that occurred in dawn, dusk, or
dark conditions.
Campaign can emphasize use of lights while riding at
night and low‐light conditions.
While motorists’ education is important, improving bicyclist skill level may be the most
critical element of an education program. As evidenced in the BSAP, a large number of
crashes occurre