Should state DOTs prefer bicycle lanes or wide curb lanes?

              Should State DOTs Prefer Bicycle
Lanes or Wide Curb Lanes?
Final Report 598
Prepared by:
A. L. Dennison
PO Box 2664
Tempe AZ, 85280- 2664
June 2008
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or
policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that
may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report.
The U. S. Government and The State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA- AZ- 08- 598
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
5. Report Date
JUNE 2008
4. Title and Subtitle
Should State DOTs Prefer Bicycle Lanes or Wide Curb Lanes? 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
A. L. Dennison
8. Performing Organization Report No.
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
A. L. Dennison
PO Box 2664
Tempe, AZ 85280- 2664
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR- PL- 1-( 67) 598
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
FINAL
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Project Manager: John Semmens
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
This report investigates collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles to ascertain their relationship ( if any) to a Bicycle
Lane or Wide Curb Lane for the purpose of informing State Departments of Transportation. A literature review describes
progress of Federal legislation supporting bicycle travel and implementation of bicycle facilities, their application in
various jurisdictions, agency liability, and the debate between advocates of Wide Curb Lanes and Bicycle Lanes. A
survey of DOT officials nationwide reveals the importance of available space and input from municipalities in designing
bicycle facilities. An examination of fatal bicyclist/ motorist collisions in Arizona suggests strong relationships to human
error and “ failure to yield” infractions, and negligible relationships to road conditions or mechanical failure. Based on the
evidence, this report cannot determine that a relationship exists between collisions, Bicycle Lanes, or Wide Curb Lanes.
Further investigation of this topic is recommended.
17. Key Words
artificial intelligence, bicycle facilities, bicycle lane,
bicyclist, collision, context, human error, liability, motor
vehicle, motorist, space, wide curb lane
18. Distribution statement
Document is available to the
U. S. public through the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
80
22. Price
23. Registrant’s Seal
SI* ( MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 Square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 Cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
mg
( or “ t”)
mg
( or “ t”)
megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact)
º F Fahrenheit
temperature
5( F- 32)/ 9
or ( F- 32)/ 1.8
Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
º F
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot- candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc
fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/ in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/ in2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... ......... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ........................... 3
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................................... ......... 5 2.1 INTRODUCTION. 5 2.2 LEGISLATION. 5 2.3 BICYCLE LANES. 7 2.31 Definition. 7 2.32 Applications. 8 2.4 WIDE CURB LANES. 10 2.41 Definition. 10 2.42 Applications. 10 2.5 BICYCLE FACILITIES AND AGENCY LIABILITY. 13 2.6 THE DEBATE: WCL V. BL. 15
3.0 SURVEY......................................................................................................................... .................................. 21 3.1 INTRODUCTION. 21 3.2 QUESTION ONE. 21 3.3 QUESTION TWO. 23 3.4 QUESTION THREE. 23 3.5 RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS. 24
4.0 ANALYSIS OF CRASH DATA....................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 INTRODUCTION. 25 4.2 DISCUSSION. 25 4.21 Failure to Yield. 25 4.22 Motorist Reversing into Bicyclist’s Path. 26 4.23 Collisions on Interstate Highways 10 and 17.27 4.24 Bicycle Facilities. 27 4.3 CONCLUSION. 28
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... ............... 29
6.0 APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................. .................... 31 6.1 LIST OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS. 31 6.2 SURVEY INSTRUMENT. 32 6.3 TRANSCRIPT OF REPLIES TO SURVEY QUESTION ONE. 34 6.4 TRANSCRIPT OF REPLIES TO SURVEY QUESTION TWO. 36 6.5 TRANSCRIPT OF REPLIES TO SURVEY QUESTION THREE. 38 6.6 TRANSCRIPT OF RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS. 39
7.0 APPENDIX B: CRASH REPORTS ( BICYCLIST/ MOTORIST COLLISIONS).................................... 41
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AI Artificial Intelligence
AzDOT Arizona Department of Transportation
BL Bicycle Lane
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CSS Context Sensitive Solutions
DOT Department of Transportation
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
LED Light emitting diode
SAFETEA- LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users
TEA- 21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TRB Transportation Research Board
WCL Wide Curb Lane
WOL Wide Outside Lane
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bicycle facility advocates have long debated the respective merits of bicycle lanes ( BLs)
and wide curb lanes ( WCLs); this report investigates their claims. A BL, defined by a 6-
inch stripe located 5 feet from the curb face, is reserved primarily for bicycle traffic. A
WCL ( also known as a wide outside lane), alternatively, is at least 14 feet wide; bikes and
automobiles share this lane, and can overtake each other without changing lanes. The
report provides input from various departments of transportation ( DOT) officials on how
WCLs or BLs are chosen in their states. The report examines police files of bicycle/ motor
vehicle collisions in the State of Arizona.
The report has three sections. First, a literature review summarizes the evolution of bicycle
facilities legislation, official definitions of BLs and WCLs, their use in various
jurisdictions, agency liability, and the ongoing debate between bicycle facility experts.
Second, the report gives survey results from bicycle facility professionals at other state
DOTs. The third section reviews fatal bicyclist/ motorist collision reports from police
agencies in Arizona and submits conclusions.
Literature Review
• The United States Congress responded to the call for bicycle facilities with: the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA), passed in 1991; the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( TEA- 21) in 1998; the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
( SAFETEA- LU) in 2005. The legislation supported bicycle advocacy in
metropolitan and state government, and promulgated bicycling as an efficient travel
mode in the nation’s transportation system.
• The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
( AASHTO) has pioneered bicycle facilities design. Its most significant
contribution, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities ( 1999), reaffirmed the
bicyclist’s legitimate status on America’s roads. This review outlines AASHTO’s
specifications for WCLs and BLs.
• Applications of BLs and/ or WCLs in various jurisdictions are reviewed.
• Agency liability is discussed.
• WCLs and BLs: Experts debate their merits; the review examines the arguments of
both sides.
Survey
• Thirty- three DOTs responded ( 63% of 52 DOTs contacted). This unscientific
sample revealed no overall bias for or against BLs or WCLs.
• Several officials reported that municipalities are responsible for planning bicycle
facilities.
• Respondents called for all stakeholders to help plan bike facilities early enough to
embed their proposals in the planning process.
• Respondents said space constraints guided selection of bicycle facilities.
2
• According to one respondent, limited space designated WCLs the only choice;
another official stated that city authorities viewed BLs as “ traffic calming” despite
narrow roads.
Crash Analysis
• We searched 85 bicyclist/ motorist fatal collision reports filed by Arizona police
agencies in 2003 – 2006 for any relationship between crashes and bicycle facilities
design.
• We believe that none of these fatal collisions was attributable to a WCL or BL,
based on the evidence.
• Apparently, no crash resulted from road conditions or road design, with three
possible exceptions: 1) A tricyclist traveling in “ what appeared to be a small lane 2
to 3 feet wide;” the lane’s width would not have met AASHTO guidelines for a BL
( Appendix B, case # 14). 2) A dedicated right turn lane was closed for construction;
a motorist turned right from the number two lane, colliding with a bicyclist who
may have expected the motor vehicle to proceed straight ( Appendix B, case # 45).
3) Ice on the road may have contributed to a bicyclist’s loss of control when
colliding with a motor vehicle ( Appendix B, case # 73).
• Crashes apparently followed human error, chiefly “ failure to yield.”
Conclusion
This study found no apparent relationship between fatal bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions
and type of bike facility. Consequently, there are no hard engineering data to support a
recommendation on the type of facility that ought to be preferred.
A significant handicap to any analysis of bicycle travel or safety is the paucity of reliable
data. For roadway travel there are continuing and consistent efforts to count and classify
the traffic. There are no similar programs for measuring or estimating the volume of
bicycle travel. If we are to get serious about this mode of travel, steps to improve data
collection are necessary if we are to make informed decisions on how cost- effectively to
accommodate bicycle travel.
Implementation Recommendation
Given the null finding regarding the comparison of BLs and WCLs, we cannot resolve the
issue of which design is safer. Therefore, we cannot recommend any specific
implementation action on design of bicycle facilities. We do urge that consideration be
given to methods for acquiring more comprehensive data on bicycle travel.
3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report explores the possibility that a relationship exists between bicyclist/ motorist
collisions and type of bicycle facility ( BL or WCL). Our research question is: Does one
type of bike facility endanger motorists and bicyclists more than the other?
In Chapter 2, a literature review describes Congressional efforts to enhance the status and
safety of bicycle travel, AASHTO’s bicycle facilities guidelines and their implementation
in various jurisdictions, agency liability, and the debate between supporters of WCLs and
BLs.
Chapter 3 shows results of a survey, in which DOT officials from other states explain how
they choose a BL or WCL and their suggestions for improving bike facilities design
procedures.
In Chapter 4, we analyze 85 police reports of fatal collisions between bicyclists and
motorists in Arizona during 2003 – 2006.
Chapter 5 has the report’s conclusions.
4
5
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes applications of Bicycle Lanes ( BL) and Wide Curb Lanes ( WCL) in
various jurisdictions and summarizes the features supporting each mode. The debate between
proponents of WCL and BL has overshadowed development of bicycle facilities for many
years. In 1999, for example, Paul Schimek realized the difficulty of making valid safety
inferences because determining whether a BL is safer than another roadway configuration
“ depends on the [ crash] risk of a bicycle lane relative to not having that lane, all else being
equal.” 1 “ Improperly designed bicycle facilities,” Schimek warned, “ can be dangerous, and
in some cases worsen bicycling conditions.” 2 Moreover, the literature shows that creation of
appropriate bicycle facilities is not just a planning and engineering issue; it poses a political
challenge as well, tantamount to satisfaction of a civil right. Bicycle advocate Steven
Goodridge, for instance, asserts that “ accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians must be
provided via safe, lawful and courteous behavior by other road users and by appropriate
engineering of roadways … anyone who has spent much time bicycling or walking in
America knows how it feels to be treated as a trespasser on our streets.” 3 While bicycle
lobbyists may disagree in many respects, their common determination to prevent
marginalization of non- motorized transport constitutes formidable political thrust. “ Every
street is a bicycle facility,” 4 declares the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving, an
organization that seeks recognition of this principle in public policymaking, “ a bicycle driver
is not afraid of traffic; a bicycle driver is traffic.” 5
2.2 LEGISLATION
The United States Congress has responded to the political exigencies of bicycle
transportation with a series of legislation:
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA) amended Section
217 of title 23, United States Code, to designate funding from the Congestion Mitigation
Program and National Highway System for bicycle transportation. 6 In addition, the Act
authorized funding for State bicycle coordinators responsible for “ promoting and
facilitating the increased use of non- motorized modes of transportation, including
1 Paul Schimek, “ The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning,” 7.2, Massbike. org, 2 March 1999.
< http:// www. massbike. org/ info/ dilemma. htm>. ( Accessed 28 April 2007)
2 Ibid., 7.
3 Steven G. Goodridge, “ The Right to Travel by Human Power,” Bicycling Life. 2001.
http:// www. bicyclinglife. com/ EffectiveAdvocacy/ TheRightToTravel. htm ( Accessed 28 April 2007.)
4 North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving, Home,
< http:// www. humantransport. org/ bicycledriving/ index. html>.
5 North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving., The Science and Politics of Bicycle Driving,
< http:// www. humantransport. org/ bicycledriving/ sciencepolitics1/ page6. html>.
6 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102- 240, SEC. 1033 ( a)( b), 18
December 1991. < http:// ntl. bts. gov/ DOCS/ istea. html>. ( Accessed 21 May 2007.)
6
developing facilities for the use of pedestrians and bicyclists and public education,
promotional, and safety programs for using such facilities.” 7
In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( TEA- 21) declared that
provision of bicycle facilities8 “ shall be given due consideration in the comprehensive
transportation plans developed by each metropolitan planning organization and State…” 9
The Act protected bikes and small motorcycles from projects that would eliminate “ an
existing major route” without providing an acceptable alternative, 10 and delegated to State
authorities responsibility for taking bicycle safety “ into account” during project
implementation. 11
In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users ( SAFETEA- LU) supplanted TEA- 21. The Act mandates provision of bicycle
facilities “ that will function as an intermodal transportation system for the State and an
integral part of an intermodal transportation system for the United States.” 12 Further, the
Act encourages collaboration between public and private organizations in “ longer- term,
higher- risk research with potentially dramatic breakthroughs for improving the durability,
efficiency, environmental impact, productivity, and safety ( including bicycle and
pedestrian safety).” 13 The Act also authorizes creation of an “ Intermodal Transportation
Database” to track “ the volumes and patterns of movement of people, including local,
interregional, and international movements, by all modes of transportation ( including
bicycle and pedestrian modes).” 14
Since 1981, The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
( AASHTO), has issued guidelines for bicycle facilities design. AASHTO’s 1999 iteration,
the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, addresses the importance of safe
bicycle facilities in promoting ridership. The Guide states that “ bicyclists can be expected
to ride on almost all roadways, as well as separated shared use paths and even sidewalks,
where permitted to meet special conditions.” 15 The Guide provides “ suggested minimum
guidelines” for designers to follow when planning diverse bicycle facilities. 16
7 ISTEA, SEC. 1033 ( d).
8 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. No. 105- 178, 9 June 1998.
< http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ tea21/ h2400enr. htm>. ( Accessed 17 March 2007) Bicycle Facilities: TEA- 21
uses the term ‘ bicycle transportation facility’ to define “ a new or improved lane, path, or shoulder for use by
bicyclists and a traffic control device, shelter, or parking facility for bicycles,” page 112, Stat. 169 ( j)( 1).
9 Ibid., Sec. 1202 ( g)( 1).
10 Ibid., p. 112, Stat. 170 ( n).
11 Ibid., p. 112, Stat. 170 ( j).
12Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Pub. L. No. 109- 59,
§ 5304. Statewide transportation planning ( a)( 2), 10 August 2005. ( Accessed 28 April 2007)
< http:// frwebgate. access. gpo. gov/ cgi-bin/
getdoc. cgi? dbname= 109_ cong_ public_ laws& docid= f: publ059.109. pdf>.
13 Ibid., 119 STAT. 1783 ( g)( e)( 1).
14 Ibid., 119 STAT. 1836 ( e)( 3)( B).
15 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities 1999 ( Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 2001) 1- 2. “ For a variety of reasons,” however, the Guide views sidewalks as “ unsatisfactory” for
bicycles. For example, a pedestrian’s walking pace and sudden change in direction may confound a bicyclist
traveling much faster ( 58). The Guide states that “ sidewalk bikeways should be considered only under
7
2.3 BICYCLE LANES
2.31 Definition
AASHTO
AASHTO’s Guide defines a BL as “ a portion of a roadway which has been designated by
striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of
bicyclists.” 17 The Guide recommends a one- way BL that follows vehicular traffic, marked
by a 6- inch solid white stripe 5 feet from the curb face. 18 Road obstacles, such as gratings
and utility covers, may require extending BL width so that bicyclists can maneuver without
entering traffic lanes. Similarly, traffic volume, speed, and composition may necessitate a
wider BL, for instance, “ where substantial truck traffic is present, or where motor vehicle
speeds exceed” 50 mph. When adjacent to parked vehicles, a BL needs a 4- inch outer
stripe to separate bicyclists from the parking lane and “ encourage” motorists to park nearer
the curb. 19 BL striping should stop at pedestrian crossings and intersections ( except at
“ particularly complex intersections” where a broken stripe is recommended instead). 20 The
Guide warns that:
Bike lanes sometimes complicate bicycle and motor vehicle
turning movements at intersections. Because they encourage
bicyclists to keep to the right and motorists to keep to the left, both
operators are somewhat discouraged from merging in advance of
turns. Thus, some bicyclists may begin left turns from the right-side
bike lane and some motorists may begin right turns from the
left side of the bike lane. Both maneuvers are contrary to
established rules of the road and may result in conflicts; however,
these can be lessened by signing and striping. 21
Near intersections, striping should encourage motor vehicles and bikes to merge gradually,
enabling users to position themselves in the appropriate travel lane depending on
destination and permitting automobiles a safer right turn than abrupt merges would allow.
Bicyclists turning left, however, may enter traffic lanes to execute a “ vehicular style” turn,
or “ pedestrian style” turn by continuing across the intersection, then proceeding left to
cross the intersection again. 22
certain limited circumstances,” for instance: “ To provide continuity along high speed or heavily traveled
roadways having inadequate space for bicyclists, and uninterrupted by driveways and intersections for long
distances” ( 20).
16 Ibid., 2.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., 23.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., 25.
21 Ibid., 25, 27.
22 Ibid., 27. Ken Cooper, PE, RLS, Road Standards Engineer, Arizona Department of Transportation, warns
that some jurisdictions may require bicyclists to dismount if using the crosswalk during “ pedestrian style”
turns, even when following traffic flow ( personal interview, 3 May 2007).
8
2.32 Applications
Various applications of bicycle facilities design are summarized below:
City of Chicago
Chicago’s narrow, congested streets presented special challenges for city planners tasked
with meeting AASHTO standards and bicyclists’ demand for BLs. Charlie Zegeer23 writes
that Chicago’s guidelines give “ an excellent example of how facilities can be retrofitted
into an existing street system … with the constraints of a 44- foot cross section.” 24 In
summer of 1999, Chicago’s experimental striping of two streets with peak hourly traffic of
150 bicycles “ proved popular with cyclists, there was a reduction in overall crash severity,
and there was no degradation in motor vehicle level of service at intersections.” 25
Emboldened by this result, Chicago now has a 107- mile network of BL. 26 The City’s
aggressive goal for 2015 to create 150 miles of BL foresees “ a 500- mile bikeway network
in Chicago that is the equal of the best in the world.” 27
City of Davis, California
In 1966, Davis City Council authorized an experimental network of BLs which soon
“ proved immensely popular.” 28 By October, 2005 Davis had achieved platinum level
status from the League of American Bicyclists for its “ bicycle friendly” system comprising
50 miles of BL and 52 miles of bike paths. 29 In its 2006 Plan the City’s Ad Hoc Bicycle
Task Force identified an “ overriding theme” wherein bicycles and automobiles would share
an “ equal level of importance” in transportation planning. 30 City planners follow
specifications in the California Department of Transportation’s Highway Design Manual31
to construct bike paths and BLs, although City policy prohibits Class III bike routes. 32 The
Plan claims “ bike lanes provide a significant benefit to safe and efficient bicycle
circulation. Conflicts between bikes and autos are dramatically reduced when on- street
23 “ Chicago Bike Lane Design Manual,” Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 2002: Foreword, Charlie
Zegeer, Director, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center ( PBIC), 12 March 2007
< http:// www. bicyclinginfo. org>.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., 3
26 “ Existing Bike Lanes,” Chicago Department of Transportation, January 2006, City of Chicago. ( Accessed
23 March 2007) < http:// www. chicagobikes. org/ existingbikelanes. html>.
27 “ Bike 2015 Plan,” January 2006, City of Chicago. ( Accessed 23 March 2007)
< http:// www. bike2015plan. org>.
28 “ City of Davis Comprehensive Bicycle Plan ( 2006),” 2. City of Davis Public Works Department and City
of Davis Bicycle Advisory Commission October 2006: City of Davis. ( Accessed 23 March 2007)
< http:// www. city. davis. ca. us/ pw/ pdfs/ 2006_ BikePlan_ withMaps. pdf>.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid., Appendix 3, 23.
31 “ Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design, Topic 1003 - Design Criteria”
California Department of Transportation, 1 September 2006. ( Accessed 24 March 2007)
< http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ oppd/ hdm/ pdf/ english/ chp1000. pdf >.
32 City of Davis, 29.
9
lanes are installed.” 33 At intersections, for example, the Plan offers BL designs that
“ provide a weaving section of sufficient length” to permit bikes the option of turning left or
proceeding straight. 34 Width guidelines for BLs are 8 feet from the curb in parking zones,
and 7 feet when adjacent to parked cars ( providing a total of 15 feet from the bike lane
stripe to the curb. 35) The Plan considers width guidelines sufficient for bicyclists
negotiating obstacles, such as yard debris, and assesses low risk of collision when a
motorist or bicyclist crosses into each other’s lane. BLs may pose risks for less skilled
bicyclists, however, “ when traffic volumes are heavy and/ or vehicle speeds are high.” 36
City of Orlando, Florida
In contrast with Chicago and Davis, Orlando’s transportation planners are grappling with
ongoing, rapid lateral growth. Indeed, evidence of the city’s explosive sprawl is visible
from outer space in its “ conurbation of congested freeways and parking lots.” 37 Orlando’s
2010 Bicycle Plan seeks to reduce automobile dependency “ by implementing a system of
safe, economical and efficient bikeway facilities and by supporting bicycle- related
programs.” 38 The Downtown Orlando Transportation Plan: Final Report asserts that “ on-street
bicycle lanes provide the safest form of travel for bicyclists in urban areas because
they allow separation from traffic lanes, and in clear view of traffic.” 39 Based on research
by Landis, et al., 40 ( examined later in this section) the Plan concludes that “ a designated
striped bicycle lane” which separates bikes from motorized traffic, significantly increases
bicyclists’ “ level of comfort.” 41 Narrow roadways in downtown Orlando, however, reduce
“ opportunities to stripe exclusive bicycle lanes.” 42 The Plan reasons that downtown’s slow
motor traffic— where bicycle traffic flows at similar speeds— may eliminate the need for
BLs and permit bicyclists to “ take the lane … [ which] is also practical in urban settings
when travel lanes are too narrow for a bicyclist and motorist to share.” 43
33 Ibid., 20. See also David Takemoto- Weerts, “ Evolution of a Cyclist- Friendly Community: The Davis
Model.” A Paper Presented at Pro Bike/ Pro Walk, Santa Barbara, California, September, 1998. ( Accessed 29
April 2007) < http:// www. taps. ucdavis. edu/ bicycle/ davis/ community. html>.
34 Ibid., 19; Figure 3, 22b; Figure 4, 22c.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 T. D. Allman and David Burnett, “ The Theme- Parking, Megachurching, Franchising, Exurbing,
McMansioning of America,” National Geographic March 2007: 99.
38 “ Transportation Planning: Bicycle Plan: Plan Goal,” 2005, City of Orlando. ( Accessed 31 March 2007)
< http:// www. cityoforlando. net/ planning/ Transportation/ bikeways/ BPlan. htm>.
39 “ The Downtown Orlando Transportation Plan: Final Report, Bicycle Facility Plan,” 4- 13. November
2006, City of Orlando Public Works Department. ( Accessed 31 March 2007)
< http:// www. cityoforlando. net/ planning/ Transportation/ documents/ DTPDOCS/ DTP1106. pdf>.
40 Bruce W. Landis, Venkat R. Vattikuti, and Michael T. Brannick, “ Real- Time Human Perceptions: Toward
a Bicycle Level of Service.” 1997, Transportation Research Record 1578. ( Accessed 31 March 2007)
< http:// www. dot. state. fl. us/ Planning/ systems/ sm/ los/ pdfs/ BLOSTRB. pdf>.
41 Downtown Orlando, 4- 10, 4- 13.
42 Ibid., 4- 20.
43 Ibid.
10
2.4 WIDE CURB LANES
2.41 Definition
AASHTO
A WCL is a traffic lane at least 14 feet wide, shared by bikes and automobiles, in which
bicyclists and motorists can overtake each other without changing lanes. AASHTO’s
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 1999 states that WCLs are “ usually
preferred where shoulders are not provided.” 44 Typically, motorists need not change lanes
to overtake bicyclists when sharing a WCL wider than 12 feet. Moreover, WCLs provide
extra turning space for motorists approaching from driveways or for those with restricted
lines of sight. 45 The Guide recommends a WCL with 14 feet of “ usable lane,” measured
from the road’s edge stripe to lane stripe ( excluding the gutter pan, which is not considered
usable). 46 Additional width is necessary for bicyclists negotiating steep inclines and
obstacles, such as gratings, parked cars, and road reflectors. 47 The Guide cautions that
continuous stretches of WCL wider than 14 feet may encourage formation of two motor
vehicle streams within the WCL; here, planners should consider striping a BL or installing
a shoulder. 48 Restriping existing roadways to create a WCL is another possibility, once the
consequences of narrower inside lanes on traffic flow have been thoroughly assessed. 49
2.42 Applications
City of Austin, Texas
Austin’s Bicycle Plan, Part 150 observes guidelines from AASHTO and a Federal Highway
Administration ( FHWA) report prepared by Wilkinson, et al., ( 1994). 51 The Plan focuses
on FHWA’s recommendations to inspire bicycle facilities design; for example, Wilkinson,
et al., define three types of bicyclists, each of whom may optimize a particular design:
44 AASHTO Guide, 17. According to the Guide, shoulders must have minimum width of 4 feet to support
bicycles. Wider shoulders are necessary when traffic exceeds 50 mph or traffic composition includes many
wide vehicles ( 16).
45 Ibid., 17.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 “ Austin Bicycle Plan, Part 1,” April 1996, City of Austin. ( Accessed 2 April 2007)
< http:// www. ci. austin. tx. us/ bicycle/ plan1. htm>.
51 W. C. Wilkinson, A. Clarke, B. Epperson, and R. Knoblauch, “ The Design Bicyclist,” in Selecting
Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. FHWA- RD- 92- 073. Washington, DC: United
States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, January 1994. ( Accessed 2 April
2007) < http:// safety. fhwa. dot. gov/ ped_ bike/ docs/ select. pdf>.
11
Group A — Advanced Bicyclists: Experienced riders who can
operate under most traffic conditions, they comprise the majority
of the current users of collector and arterial streets and are best
served by the following:
• Direct access to destinations usually via the existing street
and roadway system.
• The opportunity to operate at maximum speed with
minimum delays.
Group B — Basic Bicyclists: These are casual or new adult and
teenage riders who are less confident of their ability to operate in
traffic without special provisions for bicycles. Some will develop
greater skills and progress to the advanced level, but there will
always be many millions of basic bicyclists. They prefer:
• Comfortable access to destinations, preferably by a direct
route; either low- speed, low traffic- volume streets, or
designated bicycle facilities.
• Well- defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on
arterial and collector streets ( bike lanes and shoulders), or
on separate paths.
Group C — Children: Pre- teen riders whose roadway use is
initially monitored by parents, eventually they are accorded
independent access to the system. They and their parents prefer
the following:
• Access to key destinations surrounding residential areas,
including schools, recreation facilities, shopping, or other
residential areas.
• Residential streets with low motor vehicle speed limits and
volumes.
• Well- defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on
arterial and collector streets, or on separate bicycle paths. 52
Accordingly, Austin’s Plan offers a two- tiered approach to bicycle facilities design. For
Wilkinson, et al.’ s Group A bicyclists, it envisions a “ bikeway system on arterial streets to
facilitate continuous and efficient bicycle transportation.” 53 For Groups B and C, the Plan
suggests a “ bikeway system on collectors, with bike lane or separated path connections, or
on arterials or local and neighborhood streets where no alternative routes exist.” 54 The
Plan perceives various benefits of WCLs, such as fewer “ operating conflicts” between
bicyclists and motorists; the “ least amount of additional maintenance” compared with other
bike facilities; and the capacity to serve a greater overall number of motorists and
bicyclists. 55 The Plan reasons that Group A bicyclists, usually less concerned by high
traffic volume and relative velocity than less- experienced riders, require no bike routes or
52 The Design Bicyclist, FHWA- RD- 92- 073, Introduction, 1- 2, quoted in Austin Bicycle Plan, chapter 5, 32-
33.
53 Austin Bicycle Plan, 34.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid., 35.
12
exclusive space. For Groups B and C, alternatively, a BL or shoulder may provide the
greater “ degree of comfort and safety” necessary to encourage ridership. 56
Broward County, Florida
Broward County’s 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Update includes two types of
WCL:
• Wide Curb Lane— A vehicular lane that is wider than the
adjacent travel lanes to provide more room for the motorist
to pass a bicyclist.
• Wide Curb Lanes with lane stripe— Some roads in this
category will have a lane stripe similar to a bike lane, but
will not have a diamond symbol or bike lane signs. These
lanes will be at least 3 feet wide. 57
The Florida Department of Transportation ( FDOT), in its Florida Bicycle Facilities
Planning and Design Handbook, recognizes that a WCL may in some circumstances
provide the only “ practicable option” and permits local authorities discretion to install
WCLs. 58 However, the Handbook states that WCLs “ no longer meet FDOT requirements”
and that “ only 5% of bicyclists feel comfortable using these facilities. 59, 60 Dwight
Kingsbury, Assistant State Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator at FDOT’s Safety Office,
unable to locate the source of the Handbook’s “ only 5% of bicyclists…” claim, states that
“ it was supposed to be removed” from the PDF version of the April 2000 Handbook posted
online. “ In revised editions [ of the Handbook] in 1999 and 2000,” according to Mr.
Kingsbury, “ the passage was supposed to be amended to read, ‘... many cyclists are not
comfortable using these facilities.’” 61
56 Ibid., 36. A similar approach, for example, is taken by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The
“ Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines,” June 2006, state that “[ g] iven these two
types of design bicyclists, a two- tiered approach to meeting their needs is possible. However, because the
goal is to increase safety and use by Average Bicyclists, the development of a bicycle network for bicycle
traffic should take priority.” ( 1- 8.0 Design Approach; emphasis in original).
57 “ 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Update,” 5- 13. March 2005, Broward County, Florida. ( Accessed
5 April 2007) < http:// www. co. broward. fl. us// transportationplanning/ 5needsassesment. pdf>.
58 “ Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Handbook: Chapter 4: On Road Design,” 4- 14. April
2000, Florida Department of Transportation. ( Accessed 8 April 2007)
< http:// www. dot. state. fl. us/ safety/ ped_ bike/ handbooks_ and_ research/ bhchpt4. pdf>.
59 Ibid. Florida’s design manual asserts that only 5% of bicyclists feel comfortable using WCL facilities. By
itself, this statistic would tend to weigh fairly heavily against the WCL option. However, it is unclear how
Florida arrived at this 5% figure. Their manual provides no citation for its source. Without a verification of
how the 5% figure was determined its utility as a guide to design or policy is undermined. An example of a
FDOT bike facilities survey may be viewed at
< http:// www. dot. state. fl. us/ safety/ ped_ bike/ handbooks_ and_ research/ bhchpt4. pdf>: FDOT Safety Office
Statewide Survey on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Key Bicycle Findings ( v), and Bicycle Facilities
Satisfaction ( 19- 28).
60 Jeffrey A. Hiles provides more information on the basis of FDOT’s support for BLs in Listening to Bike
Lanes: Moving Beyond the Feud, 1996, Chapter 7: 8- 9. ( Accessed 20 May 2007)
< http:// www. wright. edu/~ jeffrey. hiles/ essays/ listening/>.
61 Dwight Kingsbury, FDOT, personal communication, 22- 23 May 2007.
13
According to Wilkinson, et al.:
Wide curb lanes can serve existing, confident cyclists— those comfortable riding with
traffic— quite well. However, for the novice cyclist wide curb lanes do not always
provide the degree of comfort or feeling of safety required to persuade them to ride on a
busy highway.
The Florida DOT has recently altered its policy of providing wide curb lanes on all new
highways in favor of providing designated bike lanes. Accommodation of the group B/ C
rider was a key determinant in this decision. 62
City of Seattle, Washington
The City of Seattle’s Bicycle Master Plan63 finds WCLs on arterial streets “ generally
acceptable for experienced cyclists.” 64 In concurrence with Wilkinson, et al.’ s standards
( reproduced above), however, the Plan asserts “ less- experienced65 bicyclists may not feel
comfortable on this type facility.” 66 The City’s objections relate to the absence of striping
that bicyclists “ with all levels of riding experience” reportedly find desirable; and
furthermore, the lack of “ markings” that would guide bicyclists through “ an intersection
with a right turn lane.” 67
2.5 BICYCLE FACILITIES AND AGENCY LIABILITY
AASHTO warns us that bicyclists can be expected on most roadways, not just in bicycle
facilities. In this regard, John W. English68 provides an assessment of agency liability:
… Designation of bikeways will not affect the government entity’s potential liability
because the liability already exists with respect to bicyclists on the highways. Careful
attention by the highway agency to compliance with applicable laws, guidelines, and
recommended procedures relating to the design, construction, operation, and maintenance
of bikeways will greatly curtail the risk of liability. The most important step which any
government entity can take to reduce potential liability is to reduce accidents on its
bikeways. 69
62 W. C. Wilkinson, A. Clarke, B. Epperson, and R. Knoblauch, The Effects of Bicycle Accommodations on
Bicycle/ Motor Vehicle Safety and Traffic Operations, 14. FHWA- RD- 92- 069. ( Washington, DC: United
States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, July 1994) 14.
63 “ Bicycle Master Plan,” updated September, 2007. City of Seattle. ( Accessed 4 November 2007)
< http:// www. seattle. gov/ transportation/ bikemaster. htm>. Among other innovations, the Plan recommends
“ Climbing Lanes,” a “ hybrid” facility that provides a 5- foot bicycle lane for bicyclists traveling uphill, and a
“ shared lane pavement marking” downhill. Slower bicyclists traveling uphill, the Plan reasons, will benefit
from an exclusive lane that permits motorists to overtake more easily; faster downhill bicyclists, however,
may require the shared “ travel lane” to avoid parked cars ( 98).
64 Ibid., 99.
65 I. e., Wilkinson, et al.’ s Groups B and C bicyclists.
66 Bicycle Master Plan, 99.
67 Ibid.
68 John W. English, Liability Aspects of Bikeway Designation ( Washington, DC: National Center for
Bicycling and Walking, 1986).
69 Ibid., Summary: 1.
14
Agency liability can exist, according to English, even for roads barred to bicyclists. If, say,
“ there is significant bicycle traffic on the roadway in spite of the prohibition, the standard
of care owed by the highway agency might well be the same as it would be without the
prohibition. The violation by the bicyclist might ( or might not) be considered contributory
negligence, but the duty of the highway agency would be unaffected by the violation.” 70
Potential liability also exists when agencies fail in their “ continuing duty to review a
[ highway] design in light of actual operation and changed circumstances, and if it appears
that the design has become hazardous.” 71 Context Sensitive Solutions ( CSS) can help
ensure that design of a bike facility ( or highway) satisfies evolving standards.
Highway maintenance, English claims, “ is the area which is most likely to produce
liability.” 72 For example, once an agency “ becomes aware” of a dangerous road condition,
it “ has a duty” to “ take reasonable action” to correct it. Remedies could include provision
of a warning sign or protective measure if fixing the dangerous condition is infeasible. 73
English gives examples in which sewer gratings and railroad crossings trapped bicyclist’s
front wheels, injuring the riders. The courts ruled that negligence existed in not providing
“ barriers or warning devices … a simple maintenance matter not protected by immunity.” 74
However, the courts determined that eliminating the dangerous conditions— replacing
grates and modifying the railroad crossings— was “ a function within the protection of
governmental immunity.” 75 These crashes illustrate the “ greater susceptibility” 76 of bikes
to road hazards than other vehicles, and “… may contribute, in a particular case, to defining
the appropriate standard of conduct which the highway agency owed the bicyclist.” 77
A bicyclist’s apprehension of safety— discussed in the next section— is an important
element in calculating agency liability. English cautions that an “ agency should carefully
avoid making statements that a designated bikeway is ‘ safe’ or that it is ‘ safer’ than some
non- designated route.” 78 English posits “ there may be a pre- existing public perception that
bikeways are safer than other routes, and that this perception may increase potential
liability. That perception should not be augmented by additional safety claims.” 79
70 Ibid., 20.
71 Ibid., 8- 9.
72 Ibid., 13- 16.
73 Ibid., 14 ( emphasis added).
74 Ibid., 14- 15
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid., 19
77 Ibid., 20
78 Ibid., 27.
79Ibid.
15
2.6 THE DEBATE: WCL v. BL
This section summarizes the debate between proponents of WCLs and BLs.
All bicycle advocates, despite their differences, energize a longstanding popular cause: the
right of bicyclists to enjoy safe bike facilities. As John Auerbach, Executive Director,
Bicycle Institute of America, Inc., expressed the situation in 1974,
The bikeway movement has grown so big and so fast that it is no
longer possible to say who is leading it. It no longer matters, if,
indeed, it ever did. The movement has created a momentum of its
own. With the passage this past year of the Federal Highway Act
of 1973, bikeway supporters in and out of government brought
about their greatest single accomplishment. Passage of the
Highway Act means more than just the appropriation of funds; it
means national recognition of the fact that bikes belong on the
roads and streets of America. It means that cyclists, more than 90
million of them, have a right to share in America’s road building
programs and highway facilities. It was the first time Congress
appropriated Highway Trust funds for anything but automobiles.
… This singular achievement must not be regarded as the end of
the battle, but rather as the beginning. 80
As outlined above, support for “ the movement” is firmly grounded in federal and local
legislation and investment. Rising concern about climate change and urban congestion also
militate in favor of bicycling. Mayor Bloomberg of New York recently proposed a
congestion tax on automobiles similar to the one imposed on motorists in central London,
and, according to the Wall Street Journal, an “ increase [ in] the number of bicycle paths in
the city. [ The Mayor’s proposal] would also require commercial buildings to have indoor
parking facilities for bikes.” 81
Nonetheless, as John Auerbach warned in 1974, the movement’s gains merely signaled the
early stages of an ongoing battle. More than thirty years after Auerbach’s prediction, the
Journal reports “ strong opposition” from “ some small businesses, car owners and parking-garage
owners to any proposals to remove parking, shrink driving lanes or reduce speed
limits. Some argue that limiting car usage would hurt business.” 82
Early disagreement among bicycle facilities designers occurred when bicycle safety expert
John Forester, in a 1974 speech, declared himself a “ soldier” in a “ war” against facilities
which, he claimed, generate confusion— and collisions— between cars and bikes. The
“ channelization of cyclists into bike lanes,” said Forester, exposed left- turning bicyclists to
danger from motorists in the adjacent motor vehicle lane; and for bicyclists proceeding
80 Speech given by John Auerbach, Executive Director, Bicycle Institute of America, Inc., “ Public and
Legislative Support for Bikeways,” in Proc. of the Seminar on Bicycle/ Pedestrian Planning and Design,
December 12- 14, 1974, Walt Disney World, Florida ( New York, American Society of Civil Engineers) 25.
Emphasis in original. Auerbach defined a “ bikeway” as “ a shared bike route, a Class III Bikeway” ( 22).
81 Nancy Keats, “ Building a Better Bike Lane,” The Wall Street Journal 4 May 2007, western ed.: W10.
82 Ibid.
16
straight ahead, danger from motorists attempting right turns across the BL. 83 Forester
believed that channelization overlooked a practicality of bicycling— that the “ proper place
to ride apparently changes with traffic state.” 84
Developing his case for WCLs in Bicycle Transportation ( 1983), Forester wrote that
“ cyclists should act and should be treated as drivers of vehicles” or vehicular bicyclists: 85
Both motorists and cyclists are happier and more comfortable with
each other on roads with wide outside lanes. Wide outside lanes
reduce the emotional tension between the parties. Cyclists know
there is sufficient room for motorists to overtake even if opposing
traffic appears. 86
Wayne Pein, representing the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving, supports the
view that “ space” comforts bicyclists and enables motorists to pass conveniently:
BLs are often touted as increasing bicyclist safety. Surprisingly,
neither BLs nor WOLs [ wide outside lanes] have been shown to
actually increase safety as defined by reducing collisions. Both
simply provide space, make passing easier for motorists and
affording comfort to bicyclists. Similarly, neither has been shown
to be more safe than the other. However, proving safety or lack
thereof through collision studies is quite difficult. 87
For Pein, “ BLs give the illusion of safety, typically reported as bicyclist comfort,
presumably due to a perceived effect from the stripe.” 88 Landis et al., ( 1997) concur: their
comparison of two road segments, identical except that one was striped, indicated that
bicyclists favored the striped segment, “ even though the striped lane had nearly double the
traffic volume of the other.” 89
Alan Wachtel, in his article, “ About bike lanes,” writes that BL striping serves a common
purpose with other traffic lane stripes: “ to delineate travel paths that could otherwise be
ambiguous, providing for more predictable movement. Many cyclists, for instance, might
find it intimidating to share an undivided 16- foot lane with 60- mi/ hr traffic.” 90
83 John Forester, “ Planning for Cyclists as They See Themselves Instead of as Motorists See Them,” in Proc.
of the Seminar on Bicycle/ Pedestrian Planning and Design, December 12- 14, 1974, Walt Disney World,
Florida ( New York, American Society of Civil Engineers) 315, 318.
84 Ibid., 323.
85 John Forester, Bicycle Transportation ( Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1983) 3.
86 Ibid., 254.
87 Wayne Pein, “ Wide Outside Lanes Are Superior to Bicycle Lanes,” 1. North Carolina Coalition for
Bicycle Driving, 6 March 2007 < http:// www. humantransport. org/ bicycledriving/ engineering/ wols. htm>.
88 Ibid.
89 Landis, et al., 124.
90 Alan Wachtel, “ About bike lanes” in John S. Allen’s Bicycle Facilities, Laws and Programs Pages
< http:// www. bikexprt. com/ bikepol/ facil/ lanes/ wachlane. htm>.
17
Robert Gray, a professor of applied psychology at Arizona State University, supports
striping, given that “ people evaluate a vehicle’s distance but not the speed.” 91 Dr Gray
believes that some motorists, particularly inexperienced ones, misjudge the clearance
between their vehicles and bicycles without a road stripe. 92 Gray also claims that motorists
have difficulty gauging their speed in relation to bicycles and motorbikes. As an
experienced researcher in human/ machine interaction, Gray predicts that, eventually, a
virtual on- board assistant will alert the motorist to impending hazards. Machine
intelligence may also relieve motorists of the responsibility to make judgments vis- à- vis
their proximity to smaller, slower vehicles such as bikes and motorbikes. In this situation,
Gray states that he would feel equally safe ( as a bicyclist) in a WCL as he would riding in a
marked BL. 93
Jeffrey Hiles reasons that since “ shy space”— the minimum distance from an object at
which one feels comfortable— varies according to the relative speed between vehicles;
bicyclists and motorists traveling at greater speeds “ have less time to identify and respond
to [ approaching] obstacles.” BL channelizations therefore “ work best” when motorists
have less reaction time on higher speed roads, or where curves and hills reduce sight
distances. 94,95
Bicycles lose stability at lower speeds than automobiles and motorbikes, yet “ scant
attention has been paid to the design speed of BLs,” according to Wayne Pein. 96 Pein
quotes from this passage in the California Department of Transportation’s Highway Design
Manual:
Bike lanes are not advisable on long, steep downgrades, where
bicycle speeds greater than 30 miles per hour are expected. As
grades increase, downhill bicycle speeds will increase, which
increases the problem of riding near the edge of the roadway. In
such situations, bicycle speeds can approach those of motor
vehicles, and experienced bicyclists will generally move into the
motor vehicle lanes to increase sight distance and maneuverability.
If bike lanes are to be marked, additional width should be provided
to accommodate higher bicycle speeds. 97
Moreover, novice bicyclists gain high speeds coasting on downgrades as quickly as
experienced riders, writes Pein. BLs, “ said to be installed for the explicit purpose of
91 Christian Richardson, “ East Valley faces deadly traffic trend,” East Valley Tribune 18 February 2007: 2.
92 Minnesota’s Bicycle Planning and Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines supports the view that
“[ b] icycle lane stripes can increase bicyclists’ confidence that motorists will not stray into their path of travel
if they remain in the bicycle lane.” ( Chapter Four: On- Road Designs 4- 2.01 Bicycle Lanes).
93 Robert Gray, Ph. D., personal interview, 1 March 2007.
94 Jeffrey A. Hiles, Listening to Bike Lanes, Chapter 8: 1- 2.
95 Hiles argues that channelization reduces “ Problem Type 13” fatalities ( Cross, 1978) in which motorists
strike a bicyclist from behind. K. D. Cross, Bicycle Safety Education: Facts and Issues ( Falls Church, VA:
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1978) rpt. in Hiles, Listening to Bike Lanes Chapter 8: 2.
96 Pein, Wide Outside Lanes Are Superior to Bicycle Lanes 2.
97 California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and
Design, Topic 1003 - Design Criteria, 1000- 16.
18
accommodating novices,” endanger novices— indeed, all bicyclists— by limiting their
maneuverability to a lane 4 to 5 feet wide. 98
Narrow lanes, according to Steven Goodridge, provide insufficient passing space for
bicycles and motor vehicles. Such roads “ often carry substantial bicycle traffic; drivers of
wide vehicles cannot pass these cyclists at safe and lawful distance without moving into the
next lane.” With traffic in adjacent lanes, however, motorists may pass the bicyclist within
the narrow lane at an “ unlawfully close and unsafe distance.” 99 Alternatively, lanes
providing at least 16 feet width provide bicyclists “ greater operating comfort” and
protection against the destabilizing effects of wind blast from heavy motor vehicles. 100 “ A
widened outside lane,” states the North Carolina Department of Transportation, “ is an
effective way to accommodate bicyclists riding in the same lane with motor vehicles. With
a wide outside lane, motorists do not have to change lanes to pass a bicyclist.” 101
“ Dooring” results from the negligent opening of a stationary motor vehicle’s door into the
path of an approaching bicyclist. Critics of BL design claim that insufficient space
between parked vehicles and the adjacent BL forces bicyclists to travel in the hazardous
“ door zone,” risking injury or death “ as the result of the sudden opening of doors,”
according to Steven Goodridge. 102 Goodridge claims that “ some traffic engineering
departments have attempted to facilitate convenient automobile- overtaking of cyclists by
directing cyclists to ride within the door zone by marking bike lane stripes and stencils in
the door zone.” This technique, used in Chicago’s narrow streets, has received criticism
from safety analyst John S. Allen, who asserts that Chicago overlooks the “ issue of a
driver’s side door’s opening into the bike lane, though ‘ doorings’ constitute a very
substantial percentage of serious crashes for bicyclists on streets with parallel parking.” 103
In addition to the hazard of door zones, Pein raises the issue of equity as well:
People using bicycles should expect an obstacle free travel way, as
do motor vehicle operators. Bike Lanes which invite and constrain
users to ride in the Door Zone create an unacceptable hazard with a
potentially suddenly appearing fixed object. Marking BLs within
the Door Zone is either a breach of safety by the unaware, or a
negligent act by those who are mindful of the hazard. Educational
interventions and engineering practice must be targeted in concert
to result in bicyclists operating outside of the Door Zone. 104
98 Pein, Wide Outside Lanes Are Superior to Bicycle Lanes 3.
99 Steven G. Goodridge, “ Wide Outside Through Lanes: Effective Design of Integrated Passing Facilities,” 2.
6 March 2007 < http:// www. humantransport. org/ bicycledriving/ library/ passing/>.
100 Ibid., 7.
101 ” Bicycle Facilities Guide: Types of Bicycle Accommodations— Wide Outside Lanes— When to Consider
This Type of Facility,” 17 April 2003, North Carolina Department of Transportation. ( Accessed 11 February
2007) < http:// www. campo- nc. us/ BPSG/ docs/ NCDOT_ on_ Wide_ Outside_ Lanes. pdf>.
102 Steven G. Goodridge, Wide Outside Through Lanes 10.
103 John S. Allen, “ The Bike Lane Design Guide—‘ Honey, they shrunk the cars!” 1. 14 May 2007
< http:// www. truewheelers. org/ comments/ laneguide/ index. htm>.
104 Wayne Pein, “ Bicycling and On- Street Parallel Parking,” 3. January 2003 ( revised December 2003).
( Accessed 14 May 2007) < http:// www. humantransport. org/ bicycledriving/ library/ door_ zone. pdf>.
19
Apparently, scarce crash data exist to show conclusively that BLs or WCLs reduce
collisions. However, as Pein acknowledges, using “ collision studies [ to determine the
superiority of either mode] is quite difficult” 105— Hiles, for one, discovered “ that what
passes for hard fact is often conjecture and exaggeration, including assertions about car-bike
crashes.” 106 The next section will help meet this shortfall, nonetheless.
105 Quoted previously on p. 15.
106 Hiles, Listening to Bike Lanes, Abstract: 1.
20
21
3.0 SURVEY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The survey’s objective was to enhance knowledge of bicycle facilities design policy at state
transportation agencies. Our open- ended questionnaire format also sought candid ( non-attributable)
opinions on how state decision makers might improve current practices in bike
facilities planning.
The survey instrument ( Attachment One) was emailed to 52 state agencies; 33 answered—
a response rate of 63%. Of these respondents, 17 returned completed questionnaires, 12
granted telephone interviews after follow- up by an AzDOT researcher, who completed
survey questionnaires based on verbal answers, two directed us to Web sites for
information about their bicycle facilities, and two sent brief email messages explaining
their bicycle facilities policy.
The survey results do not provide a representative sample. Rather, it is hoped that readers
will benefit from knowledge of how various DOTs design bicycle facilities and
respondents’ suggestions about how to improve methods by which WCLs or BLs are
chosen for a bike facility.
Highlights of respondents’ answers are given below; full transcripts are provided in
Appendix A. The source of answers is confidential. 107
3.2 QUESTION ONE
“ What key factors does your agency consider in determining whether Bike Lanes or Wide
Curb Lanes will be used on a given facility?”
Thirteen state agencies indicated that, to some degree, local authorities decide. A typical
response suggested that local involvement in bike facilities design is paramount. One
official said: “ We do not make those decisions; we stripe Wide [ Curb] Lanes or shoulders
everywhere there’s room for pedestrians and bikes. Designated Bike Lanes are planned by
municipalities.” Another agency, responsible for highways on which “ traffic levels are so
low,” stated WCLs are “ ordinarily used” and “ work fine;” usually uninvolved in “ bike
level of service,” this agency identified local “ knowledge [ and] discretion,” as factors in
facilities design. Respondents also cited local initiative, “ traffic counts and public
feedback,” “ requests from bike groups,” “ public demand,” or “ community opinion,” or
“ community support” as precursors to state involvement. Context Sensitive Solutions
( CSS), for instance, offer a “ collaborative interdisciplinary approach to developing
transportation projects,” whereby a state agency encourages “ dialogue with local
governments, road commissions, industry groups, land use advocates, residents and state
agencies early in a project’s planning phase. A cooperative spirit and an awareness of
community interests help achieve the ultimate goal— projects that fit their surroundings
while effectively serving transportation needs.” A second state referred to CSS,
107 In order to preserve anonymity, we have made a few minor alterations to the transcripts.
22
implemented “ by the Governor’s executive order … to include non- motorized facilities
consistent with federal guidelines.”
Another agency, “ whenever possible” provides a 16- foot traffic lane, “ 5 feet for bikes,”
although “ policy on whether to designate the 5- foot space as a Bike Lane or a Wide Curb
Lane is evolving.”
For some respondents, the setting— rural or urban— guides bicycle facility design. Two
western states, for example, prefer shoulders rather than BLs on rural highways. In urban
areas, however, one state “ stripes Bike Lanes” but does not “ typically” install WCLs,
whereas for another state “ Wide Curb Lanes are preferred to accommodate bicycle
transportation on state highways in urban areas and incorporated communities. Striped
Bicycle Lanes may be considered in special cases.”
Respondents cite space and right- of- way constraints. Indeed, one official from an urban
district told our researcher that “ available space” was the key factor. Another respondent
mentioned “ opposition to BLs by homeowners who don’t want to lose space to more
paving. A lot has to do with the project engineer’s discretion— we often use striped
shoulders— or WCLs; BLs are a last resort unless requested by local authorities.” Over 200
miles of BL exist statewide however, and BLs receive “ very little opposition”; moreover,
“ our two lane highways are 36 feet curb to curb— enough to qualify them as WCLs.”
Authorities may install BLs— despite insufficient space— as a traffic control device.
According to one state official, “ there are some local advocates who don’t want bike lanes
but wide curb lanes are a rare choice [ in this state]. Even the local committee in [ the city]
has put funds into striping a roadway shoulder with insufficient width and continuity for [ a]
bike lane as a desirable traffic calming measure to benefit cyclists.”
An official whose state apparently has fewer space constraints wrote that “ we only do a
wide curb lane if there is not enough room for a bike lane, but this has happened rarely.”
The state “ will include a bike lane ( in urban areas/ curb & gutter sections) in a road
widening or reconstruction project if that road is planned for a bike facility in a state,
regional/ MPO, or local transportation plan. Currently we have about 1,000
widening/ reconstruction projects in the pipeline that include bike lanes. If a project is in a
rural area, it automatically gets a 6.5’ shoulder ( sometimes reduced to 4’ if right- of- way
costs are excessive).”
Respondents named traffic speed and volume108 as other key factors in facilities design.
For example, shared roadways are used in urban areas where traffic density is high but
speed is less than 25 MPH, and on roads where traffic speeds are high but density is less
than 1200 AADT.
108 Calculated as Average Annual Daily Traffic ( AADT)
23
3.3 QUESTION TWO
“ How are these factors measured or verified?”
Eight respondents named local authorities. Essentially, these state agencies react to
proposals from local jurisdictions. Five respondents were guided primarily by available
space. For example, “ if the pavement is wide enough to accommodate a wide lane or
bicycle lane, it is deemed feasible. If there is not sufficient pavement, then a cost/ benefit
study is conducted.” In urban districts where space would allow “ either BLs or WCLs,”
wrote another respondent, “ there has been little expressed interest in WCLs as an
alternative.” Three respondents cited traffic volume. One respondent named “ aerial
photography / GIS” and “ field visits— tape measure and measuring wheel.” One respondent
said the agency reports annually to the governor on miles of BL and bike trail added, but
not WCL.
One respondent described a new bike map that shows which highways have bikeways, and
their type of design. Miles of BL are given in an “ attainment report” submitted to the state
legislature. One respondent reported “ trying to change our policy to one of routine
accommodation— considering bike facilities in every project regardless of whether it’s in a
plan or not. Right now the inclusion of bike facilities is so reliant on the State Bike/ Ped
Coordinator, which is not a good idea ….”
3.4 QUESTION THREE
“ If you could improve your agency’s decision- making process for determining whether
Bike Lanes or Wide Curb Lanes will be used on a given facility, what would you do?”
This question yielded diverse opinions. A recurring theme, however, was the belief that
bike facilities planning should start earlier and include all stakeholders. According to one
respondent, for instance, the DOT should “ try to incorporate thinking earlier in planning so
bike facilities are [ a] key part of [ the] planning process.” Other respondents wrote that “ all
bike decision makers [ should] evaluate WCLs and BLs,” and that planners should “ include
all the stakeholders and involve Context Sensitive Solutions.”
Some respondents called for better access to local stakeholders, such as “ making local
plans available via database accessible statewide,” and permitting “ more flexibility based
on opinion and local input, rather than strictly by the numbers.”
Statewide training of DOT staff was proposed as a means to “ raise the awareness of
accommodations” for bicyclists and pedestrians. Other respondents recommended creating
“ guidelines to determine appropriate use of BLs and WCLs,” and a “ protocol with a set of
standards.” One respondent proposed eliminating BLs as a performance measure or giving
“ equal weight” to both BLs and WCLs. One respondent said that limited space often
presents WCLs as “ the only option.”
24
3.5 RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
Some respondents wrote us their comments in preference to completing the survey. One
official, for example, citing local opposition to BLs, said that, nonetheless, the state seldom
installs WCLs. City authorities view BLs as a “ traffic calming measure to benefit cyclists,”
despite insufficient road width.
Another respondent provided state directives and standards, which designate paved
shoulders as “ the primary method” of “ making a state highway bicycle friendly.” 109
Design criteria in Louisiana’s Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan110 incorporate
a selection of “ best practices from around the world” in addition to FHWA and AASHTO
guidelines. 111
109 “ Engineering Directives and Standards,” 1( e) Policy Statement. Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development, Office of Highways
< http:// webmail. dotd. louisiana. gov/ ppmemos. nsf/ 0/ E40D5BEEAD087BFA86256F1D005A21A4/$ file/ EDS
M. htm>
110 “ Louisiana Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ( 1998) and Updates.” Contact information:
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office of Planning and Programming, Attn:
Statewide Plan Update, P. O. Box 94245, Baton Rouge, LA 70804.
111 Engineering Directives and Standards, 2( a) Design Criteria and Standards, Policies and Procedures.
25
4.0 ANALYSIS OF CRASH DATA
4.1 INTRODUCTION
We obtained 85 ( 97%) of 88112 microfilmed fatal bicyclist/ motorist crash reports submitted
to AzDOT by police agencies in Arizona between 2003- 2006. Excerpts are provided in
Appendix B. We omit all dates, and names of crash victims, witnesses, and reporting
officials. The data are not representative of bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions, but do give
diverse examples of how such collisions occur. In all cases, bicyclists were killed, while
motorists escaped significant physical injury. Most crashes fit the broad definition ‘ failure
to yield,’ subcategorized by errors— such as running red lights or stop signs— whose details
are summarized below. Other crashes, particularly those committed by hit- and- run
motorists without witnesses leave investigators with scant evidence to reconstruct
causation. Six collisions occurred in a bicycle facility; however, we cannot conclude from
this information that the bicyclist’s presence in a particular type of bicycle facility— WCL
or BL— affected the outcome of these crashes.
4.2 DISCUSSION
4.21 Failure to Yield
A bicycle’s nimble characteristics, which allow the rider to maneuver in tight spaces
inaccessible to motorists, are no match for a motor vehicle’s far greater speed and mass. In
addition, younger bicyclists— Wilkinson’s Group 3 riders— lack mature judgment to assess
the risk in “ beating the car” across a major roadway. At the intersection of Glendale
Avenue and 41st Avenue in Phoenix, for example, a witness relates that “ two little boys”
crossed in front of her and collided with another car. Another case illustrates a motorist’s
failure to anticipate, while allegedly driving under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or
a drug ( DUI), a child’s sudden movements on a residential sidewalk in Gilbert. According
to one witness, the child’s front wheel slipped off the sidewalk and into the motorist’s path.
A second witness, however, thought that the child was “ pedaling very fast,” trying to beat
the car. Most collision victims in our sample, though, were adult bicyclists who crossed
the road mid- block, diagonally, or perpendicularly before oncoming traffic— expecting,
perhaps, that motorists would obey the posted speed limit. One victim of a speeding driver,
apparently DUI, according to the police investigator, “ had a duty to stop and yield to
oncoming traffic lawfully in the roadway, but may not have expected the oncoming vehicle
to be traveling at such a high speed.” The investigator calculated that the crash would not
have occurred if the motorist, driving at least 64 MPH, had obeyed the posted speed limit
of 45 MPH.
Our sample indicates that a bicyclist’s wrong- way travel often precedes failure- to- yield
collisions with automobiles. A daylight incident on Broadway Road and 110th Street,
Mesa, for instance, revealed that a bicyclist rode, “ on a daily basis,” in a traffic lane against
oncoming vehicles. This practice resulted in a fatal collision when a school bus changed
112 Two reports were illegible; one report was unavailable. We discarded a fourth report, involving a multi-vehicle
fatal collision, which the bicyclist survived.
26
lanes suddenly to avoid the bicyclist; a motorist in that lane, forced to slow by the school
bus, then moved into the lane just vacated by the school bus, failing to see the bicyclist
riding towards him in time to avoid impact. The motorist stated that the bicyclist “ was
riding in the roadway about 1 foot into the roadway from the fog line.”
In one example, a motorist was driving on a license suspended due to expired insurance
coverage; while occupied with some papers, the driver passed through a red light at 45- 50
MPH, striking a teenage boy crossing on a light that had turned green “ for at least one to
two seconds,” according to a witness. A longer delay in receiving the green light might
have alerted the boy to the speeding vehicle. Listening, an important skill for alert
bicyclists, may often provide additional warning of motorists who show no sign of stopping
for a red light.
The “ right hook,” in which a bicyclist collides with a motor vehicle turning across his path,
may earn the motorist a citation for failure to yield. Yet, as the files show, the motorist’s
actions sometimes occur in extenuating circumstances. One dark morning at Buckeye
Road and 75th Avenue, without benefit of streetlights, a bicyclist who was traveling without
reflectors or lights— required by law— collided with a large truck as it made a right turn
ahead of him. In another case, a motorhome driver was stopped for a red traffic signal,
preparing to turn right at Ellsworth Road and U. S. 60. Due to construction, the dedicated
right turn lane was closed, and a bicyclist alongside, perhaps expecting the driver to
proceed straight, was killed as the motorist made his turn.
4.22 Motorist Reversing into Bicyclist’s Path
A single case in our sample involved a motorist backing into a bicyclist. The victim was a
3- year- old tricyclist, riding directly behind as the truck driver engaged reverse gear. The
driver, according to the official report, was unable to see the child. Increasingly common
in today’s more expensive automobiles are devices ( sonar or video) that warn drivers of
objects behind, and beside, the vehicle. This incident suggests that all trucks should have
such devices, not just to help motorists avoid backing into bicyclists, but to alert them to
impending “ right hook” situations as well.
27
4.23 Collisions on Interstate Highways 10 and 17
Bicyclists are prohibited on interstate traffic lanes. Posted speed limits of up to 75 MPH
allow motorists, especially truck drivers, little warning of unexpected objects ahead. Three
cases involved bicycle/ motorist collisions on interstate highways. One case— possibly a hit
and run— occurred on westbound I- 10, Tucson. Witnesses reported that a commercial
truck in the right lane bounced over a large object, possibly a cow. Moments later, the
witnesses saw sparks coming from a bicycle part trapped under the vehicle. The vehicle
took the next off ramp ( M. P. 232). Unfortunately, investigators were unable to determine
the impact point, concluding it occurred between the “ dirt median road edge and the right
emergency shoulder.” Another collision, on southbound I- 17, Phoenix, occurred when a
bicyclist, “ for an unknown reason,” rode from the emergency shoulder into the path of a
truck in the number 3 lane.
4.24 Bicycle Facilities
In six cases, motorist/ bicyclist crashes occurred in a bicycle facility. One incident,
attributable to driver inattention, happened when a motorist inadvertently moved into the
BL while traveling 60- 65 MPH. The driver reported “ reaching to change the radio station”;
moreover, glare from sunset was bad, and “ I did not see [ the victim]. I did not know I
drifted over the lane until impact.” The victim’s wife, riding alongside to the right, said
“ she was not paying any attention to the traffic” that was coming up behind them since they
were riding in the bike lane. Wayne Pein and Landis, et al., might claim this statement
demonstrates the “ illusion of safety” that a striped BL may create. 113 Alternatively, could a
narrow rumble strip ( instead of, or in addition to, the stripe) have alerted the motorist
before he entered the BL?
Another collision occurred while a motorist was driving in the curb lane, behind a tricyclist
“ traveling in what appeared to be a small lane ( about 2 to 3 feet in width), located between
the raised concrete curb and the number 2 lane.” The motorist stated that immediately
before impact, “ he looked away or possibly checked his rear view mirror.” The narrow
lane, 2 to 3 feet wide, in which the tricyclist was riding, would not qualify as a BL under
AASHTO guidelines. Further, a tricycle’s wide stance would occupy the lane’s width,
with the added risk that its left wheel could become exposed to traffic in the number 2 lane.
The third collision occurred when a bicyclist in a bike lane struck a bus at a marked bus
stop. The official report states that the bicyclist was not wearing a helmet.
The fourth crash, a hit and run, happened after a motorist apparently drifted into “ the
marked bike lane in the 1500 block of E 8th Street,” Tempe. The official report states that
the motorist “ fled the scene without providing information or assistance.” The fifth crash
also occurred when a hit- and- run motorist struck a bicyclist from behind.
113 Pein, Wide Outside Lanes, 1; Landis, et al., 124.
28
The final collision in our sample, another case of driver inattention, resulted when a
motorist, traveling at least 72 MPH in a 40 MPH zone, “ was changing a CD on the CD
player and noticed a bicyclist traveling south on Alma School in the bike lane.” The
bicyclist “ suddenly veered … into the motorist’s path.” Although one could accuse the
bicyclist of failure to yield, clearly, in this case, the driver’s high rate of speed was grossly
excessive.
4.3 CONCLUSION
To reiterate: Our sample does not represent all bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions in Arizona.
It does represent, nonetheless, fatal bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions in Arizona reported in
2003- 2006. The fatal crash data suggest a common denominator— human error.
Aggressive law enforcement can modify human behavior, such as the inclination to drive
while intoxicated, to speed, or to run red lights. Widespread implementation of artificial
intelligence in the transportation system will reduce its vulnerability to human error, as
humans relinquish control to ever smarter and increasingly reliable machines. Tellingly, in
this regard, no crash was officially attributed to mechanical failure.
29
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The study’s objective was to ascertain relationships ( if any) between bicyclist/ motorist
collisions and type of bike facility, BL or WCL. No apparent relationship was found.
However, what remained elusive to our study could be discovered in research based on a
representative sample of bicyclist/ motorist collisions in the United States, or on
examination of non- fatal bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions in Arizona. Future research may
also reveal which type— WCL or BL— is safer overall, or perhaps, that each is better suited
in a particular context. Our conclusions for this study are therefore tangential to the merits
of bike facilities.
First, despite worthy efforts by the U. S. Congress and local authorities to enhance the
legitimacy of bicycling on American roads, bicyclists still experience second- rate status to
motorists. For instance, bicyclists cannot attain equality until traffic control devices
recognize the presence of bicyclists as well as they detect motorists. Robert M. Shanteau,
Ph. D., P. E., in a presentation to Caltrans on October 17, 2007, stated that bicyclists are
“ still having trouble” with inadequate sensors, despite at least 25 years research. 114
Shanteau, citing legislation signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on October 8, 2007,
observed that since “ bicyclists and motorcyclists are legitimate users of roadways in
California … [ legislation] require[ s] all new and replaced traffic signals to detect bicycle or
motorcycle traffic.” 115 Shanteau mentioned ongoing research to develop “ advanced
methods” of recognizing bikes at traffic signals to allow riders longer green lights.
Meantime, loop sensors remain the state of the art; planners should place them under the
road “ where bicyclists are expected to stop,” or cue the bicyclist with a “ Bicycle Detector
Symbol.” 116
Secondly, traffic surveillance has achieved success in reducing crashes and speeding in
Arizona, and could prove effective in targeting common “ failure to yield” offenses— such
as those in this report’s crash data. Privacy advocates may argue that surveillance, and the
possibility that intelligent surveillance may extend a virtual police presence, vitiate
American values which permit individuals to “ be let alone.” Safety advocates,
alternatively, may claim that the gruesome crashes caused by human negligence call for
sacrifice: driving, indeed, is a privilege, not a right.
Finally, intelligent automobiles are “ closer than they may appear.” Given the role of
human error in crash causation, driverless cars offer fascinating potential in crash
prevention.
114 Robert M. Shanteau, Ph. D., P. E., “ Detecting Bicycles and Motor Vehicles Using the Same Loop
Detector,” presented to the California Department of Transportation, 16 October 2007.
115 Ibid.
116 Ibid.
30
31
6.0 APPENDIX A
Appendix A contains tables that provide our respondents’ contact information and
transcripts of their answers.
6.1 LIST OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
The table below lists the 33 respondents who answered our survey. To preserve the
anonymity of respondents, the order in which they appear in this list does not correspond
with the order in which each respondent’s transcript is presented in the tables that follow.
LIST OF RESPONDENTS
NAME AGENCY EMAIL TELEPHONE
Ken McGuire CALIFORNIA DOT ken. mcguire@ dot. ca. gov 916 653 2750
Dwight Kingsbury FLORIDA DOT dwight. kingsbury@ dot. state. fl. us 850 245 1520
Sharon Briggs UTAH DOT sbriggs@ utah. gov 801 965 4564
Paul Ahlenius KANSAS DOT bikeped@ ksdot. org 785 296 7448
Eric Glick NEVADA DOT eglick@ dot. state. nv. us 775 888 7433
Bill Story NEVADA DOT wstory@ dot. state. nv. us 775 888 7433
David Bachman PENNSYLVANIA HWY SFTY/ ENG dbachman@ state. pa. us 717 783 8444
Sharon Todd OHIO DOT sharon. todd@ dot. state. oh. us 614 752 4685
William Riviere NEW JERSEY DOT william. riviere@ dot. state. nj. us 609 530 4646
Tom Huber WISCONSIN DOT thomas. huber@ dot. state. wi. us 608 267 7757
Mike Goodno DC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION mike. goodno@ dc. gov 202 671 0681
Neal Honma HAWAII DOT neal. k. honma@ hawaii. gov 808 692 7675
Craig McIntyre SOUTH DAKOTA craig. mcintyre@ state. sd. us 605 773 4912
Jerry Moore NEW HAMPSHIRE DOT jmoore2@ dot. state. nh. us 603 271 3320
Caryn Giarratano MISSOURI DOT caryn. giarratano@ modot. mo. gov 573 522 9297
Josh DeBruyn MICHIGAN DOT DeBruyn@ michigan. gov 517 335 2918
Paul Douglas TEXAS DOT pdouglas@ dot. state. tx. us 512 486 5112
Tim Rogers NEW MEXICO DOT tim. rogers@ state. nm. us 505 827 0050
Sheila Lyons OREGON DOT Sheila. a. lyons@ odot. state. or. us 503 986 3555
Paul Simms ARKANSAS HWY & TRANS paul. simms@ arkansashighways. com 501 569 2100
Michael Jackson MARYLAND DOT mjackson3@ mdot. state. md. us 410 865 1237
Amy Goodwin GEORGIA DOT Amy. Goodwin@ dot. state. ga. us 404 657 6692
Ron Schlautman NEBRASKA DOT ronschlautman@ dor. state. ne. us 402 479 4338
Paula Reeves WASHINGTON DOT ReevesP@ wsdot. wa. gov 360 705 7258
Mary Lou Crenshaw ALABAMA DOT crenshaw@ dot. state. al. us 334 353 6439
Dan Kline WYOMING DOT dan. kline@ dot. state. wy. us 307 777 4719
Bill Robinson WEST VIRGINIA DIV OF HWYS wrobinson@ dot. state. wv. us 304 558 9615
Brian Parsons LOUISIANA DOT BrianParsons@ dotd. louisiana. gov 225 379 1954
Mark McNeese IDAHO DOT mark. mcneese@ itd. idaho. gov 208 334 8272
Dan Stewart MAINE DOT dan. stewart@ maine. gov 207 624 3252
Jim Sebastian WASHINGTON, D. C., DPW jim. sebastian@ dc. gov 202 671 2331
Steve Church RHODE ISLAND DOT schurch@ dor. ri. gov N/ A
Tom Norman NORTH CAROLINA DOT tnorman@ dot. state. nc. us N/ A
32
6.2 SURVEY INSTRUMENT
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Survey of Wide Curb Lanes/ Bike lanes
The Arizona Department of Transportation ( AzDOT) is evaluating the effectiveness of Bike Lanes
and Wide Curb Lanes in reducing collisions between bicyclists and motorists. As part of this effort,
we are interested in learning how other transportation agencies assess each of these bicycle
accommodation options. We would appreciate your response to the following questions. This
information will be used to assist AzDOT in improving its current practices.
Person completing this survey: _________________________ Jurisdiction:
_______________________
Department and Section:
_____________________________________________________________________________
______
Telephone: _______________________ Email:
_____________________________________________
PLEASE EMAIL, FAX OR MAIL YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY TO JOHN SEMMENS AT ONE
OF THE FOLLOWING CONTACTS:
FAX: 602- 712- 3400 EMAIL: jsemmens@ azdot. gov MAILING ADDRESS: Arizona
Transportation Research Center, 206 S. 17 Ave., MD 075R Phoenix, AZ 85007
If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Michael Sanders at 602- 712- 8141
or John Semmens at 602- 712- 3137
1. What key factors does your agency consider in determining whether Bike Lanes or Wide Curb
Lanes will be used on a given facility?
2. How are these factors measured or verified?
33
3. If you could improve your agency’s decision- making process for determining whether Bike
Lanes or Wide Curb Lanes will be used on a given facility, what would you do?
4. Has your agency used any reports, studies, memoranda, policies or plans that include
information on bicycle traffic and/ or safety to help guide decisions on whether to implement
Bike Lanes or Wide Curb Lanes? Yes No If yes, how may we obtain a copy?
Specify document name and date
5. Is there anyone else you think we should include in this survey? Yes No If yes,
please let us know the name and e- mail address so we may invite them to participate.
If you would like a copy of the final report for this project please provide a name and e- mail or
postal address for the person who should receive the report.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE!
34
The following three tables provide transcripts of replies to Questions One to Three. The
fourth table contains respondents’ comments outside the scope of the questionnaire.
Information that could identify respondents is redacted.
6.3 TRANSCRIPT OF REPLIES TO SURVEY QUESTION ONE
Twenty- eight replies to Question One were received from our 33 respondents—
QUESTION ONE
“ What key factors does your agency consider in determining whether Bike Lanes or Wide
Curb Lanes will be used on a given facility?”
1 Don’t put BLs on roads— decided by cities and municipalities. WCLs are used by default, mostly.
2 Decisions made at the local level. Our standards include 8’ shoulders— the most basic level of
accommodation— available for breakdowns and bikes.
3 Available space.
4 On a construction project in an urban area, generally endeavors to provide bike lanes, not WCLs.
On a resurfacing project involving a state road currently without bike lanes in an urban area, first
consideration would ordinarily be given to provision of bike lanes ( i. e., if this could be achieved
without moving curbs or other adjustments usually considered beyond the scope of resurfacing),
then ( if BLs not practical) to WCLs; if BLs of standard dimensions are deemed not practical and
WCLs are already present, they would just be kept in most cases. In a few projects with ROW
constraints, 11’/ 3’ lane striping has been used ( DOT’s gutters usually provide more than a foot of
additional width, so total width from stripe to curb of the undesignated facility is about 4’ or more
in such cases).
5 DOT will include a bike lane ( in urban areas/ curb & gutter sections) in a road widening or
reconstruction project if that road is planned for a bike facility in a state, regional/ MPO, or local
transportation plan. Currently we have about 1,000 widening/ reconstruction projects in the
pipeline that include bike lanes. If a project is in a rural area, it automatically gets a 6.5’ paved
shoulder ( sometimes reduced to 4’ if right- of- way costs are excessive). We only do a wide curb
lane if there is not enough room for a bike lane, but this has happened rarely. DOT does not
“ retrofit” roads for bike facilities. We only do it if it’s part of a road construction project or through
local government applications for the Transportation Enhancement or CMAQ programs.
6 Don’t build BLs as a rule— province of municipalities.
7 1. Project Type; typically changes would only occur with reconstruction or new construction
projects; 2. what does the local agency bike/ ped plan show for that facility when it is improved; 3.
right- of- way needs.
8 The Department has not developed any factors internally. Since most facilities will be local, local
needs and requirements will determine which facilities will be constructed.
9 We do not make those decisions; we stripe Wide [ Curb] Lanes or shoulders everywhere there’s
room for pedestrians and bikes. Designated Bike Lanes are planned by municipalities.
10 Whenever possible provide 16’ lane ( 5’ for bikes). Policy on whether to designate 5’ space as BL
or WCL is evolving.
11 DOT practices Context Sensitive Solutions ( CSS) which is a collaborative interdisciplinary
approach to developing transportation projects. Under CSS, DOT solicits dialogue with local
governments, road commissions, industry groups, land use advocates, residents and state agencies
early in a project’s planning phase. A cooperative spirit and an awareness of community interests
help achieve the ultimate goal— projects that fit their surroundings while effectively serving
transportation needs. As a result it is often during the public input process it is often brought to the
Department’s attention that the route sees heavy bicycle use and wide curb lanes or wide paved
shoulders should be provided. The Department rarely actually makes these facilities as designated
bike lanes.
35
QUESTION ONE
“ What key factors does your agency consider in determining whether Bike Lanes or Wide
Curb Lanes will be used on a given facility?”
12 DOT typically considers wide curb lanes or bike lanes when it is brought up during the public
involvement process, requested by the municipality/ county or is part of a known bike route. Some
factors that are considered include ( a) truck traffic, ( b) pavement cross section, ( c) shoulder width
( if any), ( d) vehicle speed and ( e) traffic volume. In general, we follow the AASHTO Guide for
the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
13 Nothing official in writing. Depends on requests from bike groups. WCLs are standard on new
highway construction or highway modifications.
14 Usually local planning authority.
15 Traffic counts and public feedback.
16 1) Pavement Width 2) Traffic Volume ( AADT) 3) Travel Speed Limit 4) Urban or Rural 5) With
or W/ O Parking.
17 Only in cities, and they decide.
18 Shared roadways are used on LOW SPEED (< 25MPH) roadways in DOWNTOWNS and URBAN
CENTERS. And on LOW VOLUME (< 1200 +/- ADT) roads of any posted speed.
19 State or local roadway/ classification ( arterial, collector, etc.) ( if local & DOT providing funds,
must have local community support, roadway, roadway width, parking lanes, AADT, truck
volume, signalization, intersection treatments, trip generators. AASHTO Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities.
20 Ordinarily don’t do bike level of service— local discretion and knowledge, and cost factor. WCLs
ordinarily used. Traffic levels are so low: WCLs work fine.
21 A) Width of available right- of- way B) Presence of a bicycle route plan.
22 By governor’s executive order is context sensitive to include non- motorized facilities consistent
with federal guidelines.
23 A lot has to do with project engineer’s discretion. There is opposition to BLs by homeowners who
don’t want to lose space to more paving— we often use striped shoulders ( then WCLs; BLs are a
last resort unless local authorities request them). More than 200 miles of BL in state; very little
opposition to BL. Our two lane highways are 36’ curb- to- curb ( enough to qualify as WCL).
24 Public demand.
25 Highway shoulders are generally considered the most effective means of accommodating bicyclists
on rural highways. Wide curb lanes are preferred to accommodate bicycle transportation on state
highways in urban areas and incorporated communities. Striped bicycle lanes may be considered
in special cases. Guidance comes from DOT Operating Policies and AASHTO.
26 Local plans must designate the route as a bicycle route or the local jurisdiction must provide the
required funds.
27 Width of roadway; street classification; vehicle volume and speed; presence or absence of vehicle
parking [ and] parking turnover; connectivity to existing or proposed bike lanes; bicycle volume,
based upon manual counts and/ or familiarity; community opinion— we send out notice of intents to
advisory neighborhood commissions [ and] receive feedback from community organizations—
present proposals at community meetings; bicycle advisory council; truck volume; crash data; 2005
Bicycle master plan.
28 Available pavement width; available right- of- way; continuity of bike route.
36
6.4 TRANSCRIPT OF REPLIES TO SURVEY QUESTION TWO
Twenty- eight replies to Question Two were received from our 33 respondents—
QUESTION TWO
“ How are these factors measured or verified?”
1 Not real sure— done at the local level.
2 Whether we have money/ space to provide shoulders.
3 With a ruler.
4 Measurements of available width. The public can and occasionally does express differing
preferences about bikeways on state roads, but in urban projects in which either BLs or WCLs
would be feasible, there has been little expressed interest in WCLs as an alternative.
5 Our bicycle accommodation is a DOT policy is in our Design Policy Manual. Project managers need
to get a variance if they do not comply. I have 100+ local, regional and state bike/ ped and/ or
transportation plans on file. Each month when new projects get programmed/ authorized and added
to DOT’s project database, I check the project location against the plans on file to determine if it
needs a bike lane. If it does, there is a field in our project database to indicate that it requires a bike
facility. Also, the project managers typically get in touch with me when they begin to develop their
concept report ( to verify whether or not a bike facility is needed). FYI— I am in the process of
trying to change our policy to one of routine accommodation – considering bike facilities in every
project regardless of whether it’s in a plan or not. Right now the inclusion of bike facilities is so
reliant on the State Bike/ Ped Coordinator, which is not a good idea— it could all come apart if I left.
6 If municipality asks, state will assist consistent with AASHTO and federal guidelines.
7 As the department’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator I am on the department’s project review
team and I review every project from concept through final design. Justification for both the type of
facility and its inclusion in the project must be discussed in the project’s concept report.
8 Local requirements.
9 There are no factors. We install shoulders based on our paving policy— Bike Lanes are a municipal
effort.
10 New bike map shows state highways that have bikeways and type of design. Miles of BL are given
in ‘ attainment report’ submitted to the legislature.
11 DOT relies on the local units of government, residents, and local DOT staff to verify this
information and level of need on these facilities. DOT also works closely with the League of
Bicyclists who provides information on the frequency of use of these facilities for organized bicycle
tours.
12 Essentially, if the pavement is wide enough to accommodate a wide lane or bicycle lane, it is
deemed feasible. If there is not sufficient pavement, then a cost/ benefit study is conducted. User
safety is always a primary concern. If the percent of truck traffic, the traffic volume and the posted
speed limit present no concerns, a wide curb lane or bicycle lane is generally provided. Generally
speaking, bicycle lanes are used in more urban areas where one might find on- street parking, smaller
lane widths and more frequent turns. Wide curb lanes are most likely used in suburban areas with a
lower traffic count than urban areas. In rural areas with four- foot or wider paved shoulders, DOT
considers the shoulder an adequate bicycle facility.
13 Verified by construction engineer ( WCL); BL installation depends on pressure from bike groups and
municipal initiative.
14 Local planning.
15 Follow- up on traffic counts.
16 State databases and/ or Field visits.
17 City jurisdiction.
18 Speed and Traffic Volume Data is know [ sic], the CONTEXT ( downtown or urban center) is
verified with our Digital Video Log of all state highways, i. e. visual inspection.
19 Roadways under DOT jurisdiction where bike lanes are proposed— as part of preliminary design
contract, roadway factors noted above are measured/ evaluated by project design consultant.
37
QUESTION TWO
“ How are these factors measured or verified?”
20 Visual inspection, traffic counts ( bike traffic not usually counted).
21 A) The width of right- of- way is physically measured B) Local bicycle route plans are looked at in
the planning process.
22 Annual report to the governor: Miles of BL and trail added, but not WCL.
23 They really aren’t; don’t keep track.
24 By meeting with public if a request is received.
25 Via plans review with the state bicycle/ pedestrian coordinator.
26 See # 1.
27 Aerial photography/ GIS; field visits— tape measure and measuring wheel;
resurfacing/ reconstruction plans; right- of- way database ( really just scanned photos of 1950s era 3 by
5 cards); street database; synchro/ HCM LOS analysis; transportation studies; vehicle counts— both
volume and turning movement counts; computer aided design— Microstation and/ or AutoCAD;
police crash reports— although reliability and extent of information is limited.
28 As- built plans, field investigations and our bicycle master plan.
38
6.5 TRANSCRIPT OF REPLIES TO SURVEY QUESTION THREE
Twenty- five replies to Question Three were received from our 33 respondents—
QUESTION THREE
“ If you could improve you agency’s decision- making process for determining whether
Bike Lanes or Wide Curb Lanes will be used on a given facility, what would you do?”
1 Make decisions about putting in any kind of facility.
2 Try to incorporate thinking earlier in planning so bike facilities are key part of planning process.
3 Apply FHA criteria ( 90% of streets have parked cars).
4 Since the policy is to try to provide BLs, Department has no established decision- making process for
making such a choice. If a Shared Lane Marking is adopted in the MUTCD, 117 that might awaken
greater interest in possible use of WCLs.
5 Mentioned above – routine accommodation. My current proposal is to include bike lanes in all urban
projects, paved shoulders in all rural projects. Should there be significant right of way impacts, or
other compelling reasons not to include bike lanes, then 14’ wide curb lanes should be included
instead.
6 Recently developed and strengthened implementation of bike safety checklist for planners and
engineers working on highway modifications and new construction.
7 Nothing, what we do seems to work. I think everyone involved in the process enjoys some
flexibility.
8 The Department hasn’t assessed the matter at this time.
9 We don’t actually make decisions on Bike Lanes or Wide Curb Lanes. We encourage shoulders to
be used for bikes and pedestrians— if there’s room. If there’s too little room, then the road serves as
a Wide Curb Lane by default. Shoulders serve as our Bike Lanes. The State may stripe Bike Lanes
in congested areas, such as intersections. We fund the creation of municipal striping ( in City X, for
example) and encourage municipal Bike Lanes. It’s safer to delineate a Bike Lane if possible.
However, I don’t think Bike Lanes are needed on highways between towns, but they are needed in
towns.
10 Encourage more BLs than being planned. A training course for engineers and decision makers in
which they’d gain a ‘ handlebar perspective’ riding on bike facilities.
11 I would require that they provide the facilities without question on all road projects without always
bringing up issue of cost. Often times when the need for a facility is identified the Transportation
Enhancement program is the source of funds used to pay for that portion of the roadway suitable for
bicyclists, beyond the minimum standard width requirements of vehicles.
12 I have developed a four- hour training on bicycle and pedestrian accommodations called
Infrastructure Guidelines for Nonmotorized Transportation. Very soon I will develop this training
across the state to DOT personnel to raise the awareness of options for accommodations. Topics to
be covered include the DOT bike/ ped policy, facility types and pedestrian design details.
13 Set up protocol with set of standards.
14 Develop a set of guidelines to determine appropriate use of BLs and WCLs.
15 Include all the stakeholders and involve Context Sensitive Solutions.
16 Allow more flexibility based on opinion and local input, rather than strictly by the numbers.
17 Have all bike decision makers evaluate WCLs and BLs.
18 We have a clear decision tree. If bike lanes are required but cannot be provided a design exception is
required and we have a lot of input on granting design exceptions.
19 More input from bike/ ped coordinator and traffic studies that do count bikes.
117 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MUTCD); available in PDF or HTML format:
< http:// mutcd. fhwa. dot. gov/ kno- 2003r1. htm>.
39
QUESTION THREE
“ If you could improve you agency’s decision- making process for determining whether
Bike Lanes or Wide Curb Lanes will be used on a given facility, what would you do?”
20 Research is underway at the Center for Transportation Research at the [ University of X] to help
planners and designers better understand bicyclist’s and motorist’s interactions with each other on
various facility types. This project should be completed by September 2007 and published a few
months later.
21 Making local plans available via database accessible statewide.
22 More preference- based than criteria- driven. Insufficient space for bikes; homeowner’s opposition.
23 Stronger emphasis on engineering personnel considering bike/ ped improvements during planning
phase.
24 Either eliminate the addition of bicycle lanes as a performance measure, or lend equal weight to both
bicycle lanes and wide curb lanes.
25 Right- of- way is very limited here so the decision is usually made by the existing roadway. Many
times a bike lane will not fit within the existing roadway thus a wide curb lane is the only option.
6.6 TRANSCRIPT OF RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
Four of our 33 respondents wrote these comments—
RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
1 Respondent reported that state ‘ has no widened typical section. We do review needs of the area on an
individual project basis.’
2 Respondent emailed this message: ‘ We do not have official policies but I give you my take on this,
which I have expressed within DOT and with local partners. I base a lot of this on AASHTO Guide for
the Development of Bicycle Facilities. There are some local advocates who don’t want bike lanes but
wide curb lanes are a rare choice here. Even the local committee has put funds into striping a roadway
shoulder with insufficient width and continuity for bike lane as a desirable traffic calming measure to
benefit cyclists. I would be happy to see what you come up with.’
3 Respondent states: ‘ I’ve sent you the link to the update [ for state’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; see
Question 4], which is in draft form. Of particular interest to you will be the BIKE LANE MATRIX
which seeks to provide guidance on this very question. This is newly developed and has not been
extensively vetted, but will be published with the plan update this winter’. [ Note: Please contact
authors of this report if you wish further information].
4 Respondent states: ‘[ DOT] stripes bike lanes in urban areas, and bicyclists may use the shoulder in
rural areas. We try to include adequate shoulder- width in all of our projects. However, we haven’t
typically used the Wide Curb Lane - so I’m unable to provide anything of value for your survey. Our
Traffic & Safety Division indicates a preference for striping ( bike lane or fog line) - in the interest of
safety to designate a “ space” for each vehicle type. If I come across anything that I think would be
helpful, I’ll send it your way. Good luck!’
40
7.0 APPENDIX B: Crash Reports ( Bicyclist/ Motorist Collisions)
Appendix B tabulates information of 85 fatal bicycle/ motor vehicle collisions in the State of Arizona during 2003 - 2006. Bicycle crash typing in
column 3 is based on Bicycle Crash Types: A 1990’ s Informational Guide. 118 Excerpted statements by witnesses and official responders are
provided; all identifiers are omitted.
# LOCATION/
CITY/ TIME/
JURISDICTION
BICYCLE CRASH
TYPE
CRASH SYNOPSIS WITNESS STATEMENTS OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
1 Fremont Street/ S 17th
Street, Phoenix.
Evening. PHOENIX
P. D.
Specific
Circumstances:
Play vehicle and
backing motor
vehicle.
Truck reversed on roadway, struck 3-
year- old tricyclist riding behind the truck.
Driver unable to see the child.
N/ A N/ A
2 N Campbell Avenue/ E
Broadway, Tucson.
Daylight. TUCSON
P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At An
Intersection: Ride
Out At
Intersection—
Other.
Motorist turned left on green arrow,
collided with bicyclist ( not wearing helmet)
who was crossing against traffic light.
N/ A N/ A
3 Buckeye Road/ 75th
Avenue. Dark; no
streetlights.
MARICOPA COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE.
The Motorist
Failed To Yield To
The Bicyclist At An
Intersection: Drive
Out At
Intersection—
Other.
N/ A Truck’s lights were on; speed about 5- 10 MPH;
hit bicyclist between right front corner of cab to
middle of bumper/ grill area.
Truck driver failed to yield to bicyclist while
turning right on green light. Bicycle not properly
equipped to be ridden at night ( i. e., white
headlight, red reflector/ light at rear).
4 7000 Block W Van
Buren Street.
Dark/ no streetlight.
PHOENIX P. D.
Specific
Circumstances:
Weird— Hit & Run.
Bicyclist westbound in the eastbound lane
struck from behind by westbound motorist
in the eastbound lane.
N/ A Driver left scene of collision.
118 W. W. Hunter, Wayne E. Pein, and Jane C. Stutts, Bicycle Crash Types: A 1990’ s Informational Guide, FHWA- RD- 96- 104. ( McLean, VA: United States Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1997).
41
# LOCATION/
CITY/ TIME/
JURISDICTION
BICYCLE CRASH
TYPE
CRASH SYNOPSIS WITNESS STATEMENTS OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
5 Sun Valley
Parkway/ M. P 128.8.
Daylight. MARICOPA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE.
The Motorist Was
Overtaking The
Bicyclist: Motorist
Overtaking—
Failed To Detect.
Bicyclist westbound on Sun Valley Pkwy
when struck from behind by truck that had
drifted into the bicycle lane.
Victim’s wife said she was not paying any
attention to the traffic that was coming up
behind them since they were riding in the bike
lane.
Driver reports reaching to change radio station
when he drifted into the bicycle lane; traveling
60 to 65 MPH. Driver states glare from sunset
was bad: “ I did not see [ victim]. I did not know
I drifted over the lane until impact.”
6 I- 17, southbound, in
area of 7th Avenue,
( milepost 197),
Phoenix. Night;
“ moderate
illumination” from
ADOT lighting.
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY.
Specific
Circumstances:
Weird— Non-roadway
( i. e.
bicycles prohibited
on interstate
highway).
N/ A Multiple witnesses report human remains and
bicycle debris in lanes 1, 2, and 3, and running
over same.
Tractor/ trailer traveling about 55 MPH
southbound in # 3 lane when, for an unknown
reason, bicyclist rode northward from
emergency shoulder into truck’s path.
7 S 51st Avenue/ W
Broadway Road,
Phoenix. Dawn.
PHOENIX P. D.
The Motorist Was
Overtaking The
Bicyclist: Motorist
Overtaking—
Failed To Detect.
Bicyclist northbound on 51st Avenue when
struck by northbound motorist. Motorist
fled scene and was involved in another
collision on S 51st Avenue.
N/ A N/ A
8 W Glendale
Avenue/ N 41st
Avenue, Phoenix.
Evening. PHOENIX
P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At A
Midblock Location:
Ride Out At
Midblock.
N/ A I was heading east on Glendale Avenue when
two little boys crossed, heading north on 41st
Avenue. They made it as far as the left lane,
heading west. A gray car hit one boy; his bike
went up in the air and hit my front end … I
blocked the boy with my [ vehicle] … . I was in
the fast lane when the boys crossed in front of
[ me] … .
N/ A
9 S Alma School/ W 8th
Avenue, Mesa. Dark;
streetlights on.
MESA P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At A
Midblock Location:
Ride Out At
Midblock.
Bicyclist southbound on sidewalk on west
side of Alma School Road when rider
decided to cross roadway. Bike entered
southbound lanes traveling in a southeast
direction. Bicyclist was in the southbound
lane when hit by vehicle southbound in
that lane.
N/ A N/ A
42
# LOCATION/
CITY/ TIME/
JURISDICTION
BICYCLE CRASH
TYPE
CRASH SYNOPSIS WITNESS STATEMENTS OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
10 N Columbus Blvd/ E
Grant Road, Tucson.
Daylight. TUCSON
P. D.
The Motorist
Failed To Yield To
The Bicyclist:
Drive Through.
Bicyclist southbound on Columbus Blvd
as [ biker] crossed on a green light,
vehicle was westbound on Grant, ran red
light and collided with bike. Motorist fled
scene westbound on Grant.
N/ A Suspect ran red light and struck victim.
Suspect left the scene.
11 N 59th Avenue/ W
McDowell Road,
Phoenix.
Morning/ daylight.
PHOENIX P. D.
The Bicyclist
Turned Or Merged
Into The Path Of
the Motorist: Ride
Out From
Sidewalk.
Bicyclist eastbound on McDowell;
[ entered roadway from the southwest
sidewalk and] collided with school bus
completing right turn from eastbound
McDowell to go south on 59th Avenue.
N/ A N/ A
12 N 28th Place/ E Oak
Street, Phoenix.
Daylight. PHOENIX
P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At A
Midblock Location:
Ride Out At
Midblock.
Bicyclist northbound on 28th Place, on
wrong side of road; abruptly turned
eastbound across roadway, just south of
E Oak Street; collided with truck
westbound on E Oak St. turning south
onto 28th Pl.
N/ A N/ A
13 S Alma School
Road/ W 8th Avenue.
Dark; streetlights on.
MESA P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At A
Midblock Location:
Ride Out At
Midblock.
Bicyclist westbound across S Alma
School when struck by southbound
motorist.
Witness: I was traveling north on Alma School
Road. Saw bicyclist cross street from east to
west. Had to slow to miss bicycle rider. Saw
bicyclist did not stop in center lane, but
continued across southbound traffic and was
struck.
Witness: We [ occupants of vehicle that hit
bicyclist] were driving south on Alma School.
[ Driver] yelled ‘ Oh, ----,’ and slammed on the
brakes and we hit the bicyclist on the left.
Bicycle and bicyclist flew into windshield and
we skidded to a stop.
Witness: I was in the far left lane, three car
lengths behind vehicle that struck bicyclist. It
appeared victim rode bike from east to west
across Alma School into the path of vehicle.
It was dark; sky was cloudy. I [ police
investigator] did not note any adverse weather
at the time of investigation. S Alma School is a
north/ south arterial street. Surface is traveled
asphalt. Curbs are raised concrete with
concrete sidewalks. Streetlights were lit along
the west side of street with an overhanging light
head very near impact area. There are three
through lanes in each direction, separated by a
two- way- left turn lane. Posted speed limit is 40
MPH. There are no crosswalks in immediate
collision area.
Based on available information it appears
bicyclist was traveling from east to west across
S Alma School. Bicyclist was wearing a
protective helmet and protective outer clothing.
There was evidence of portable lighting on the
rider.
43
# LOCATION/
CITY/ TIME/
JURISDICTION
BICYCLE CRASH
TYPE
CRASH SYNOPSIS WITNESS STATEMENTS OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
14 Dysart Road/ Acoma
Street. Daylight. EL
MIRAGE P. D.,
MARICOPA COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
MARICOPA COUNTY
MEDICAL
EXAMINERS,
SURPRISE F. D.,
SURPRISE P. D.
The Motorist Was
Overtaking The
Bicyclist: Motorist
Overtaking—
Failed To Detect.
Motor vehicle rear- ended bicycle. [ I was] traveling behind motorist ( whose speed
was about 40 MPH) in # 2 lane northbound on
Dysart Road from Thunderbird Road. Motorist
did not drive into another lane before colliding
with bicyclist.
[ Passenger in motorist’s vehicle] stated he was
resting in the car with his head low, looking at
the floor because he was tired and feeling lazy.
Said he did not see anything but heard a loud
bang and glass sprayed over him.
[ Back seat passenger in motorist’s vehicle] said
he saw nothing but felt something hit the car.
Motorist was traveling in # 2 ( curb lane) at time
of collision. Tricyclist traveling in what
appeared to be a small lane ( about 2 to 3 feet in
width) and was located between the raised
concrete curb and the # 2 lane. Tricycle was
turned upside down ( in the # 2 northbound lane
of Dysart Road) with a bent rim. Motor vehicle
had extensive damage to the windshield and
roof.
Motorist stated that he was driving about 40
MPH northbound, in a northbound lane, on
Dysart Road. Said he looked away or possibly
checked his rear view mirror when he heard a
noise hit the car and saw someone rolling over
the vehicle.
It was obvious by looking at the damage that
the bicycle had been struck from behind by the
front of the vehicle. I also found a scuff mark in
the northbound bicycle lane. This scuff
appeared to be from the right rear tire of the
[ tr] icycle when it was struck. On the right side
of the tire scuff I found what appeared to be a
shoe scuff. I looked at the right shoe of the
rider and found damage to the outside edge of
the shoe that is consistent with dragging it on
the ground. I … found that the vehicle would
have been traveling at a minimum speed of 49
MPH.
15 N 35th Avenue/ W
Turney Avenue,
Phoenix. Night.
PHOENIX P. D.
Specific
Circumstances:
Unknown.
N/ A N/ A Bicyclist crossing N 35th Ave., mid- block; struck
by southbound motorist, who fled the scene,
failing to aid victim.
44
# LOCATION/
CITY/ TIME/
JURISDICTION
BICYCLE CRASH
TYPE
CRASH SYNOPSIS WITNESS STATEMENTS OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
16 N 5th Avenue/ E
Congress Street,
Tucson. Daylight.
TUCSON F. D.
TUCSON P. D.
The Operator Was
On The Wrong
Side Of The
Street: Wrong
Way Bicyclist.
Victim riding on sidewalk and rode into
path of oncoming vehicle.
Bicyclist riding eastbound on south side of
Congress on sidewalk.
Motorist westbound on Congress in the left
lane; turned left at 5th Avenue to go
southbound. Bicyclist, riding on sidewalk,
proceeding eastbound on south side of
Congress.
Bicyclist traveling very fast, rode onto 5th
Avenue in front of motorist.
Wrong way on one- way street/ improper use of
sidewalk.
17 W Southern
Avenue/ S Country
Club Drive, Mesa.
Daylight. MESA P. D.
The Operator Was
On The Wrong
Side Of The
Street: Wrong
Way Bicyclist.
N/ A N/ A Bicyclist riding eastbound on north sidewalk of
West Southern Avenue from S Country Club
Drive in Mesa. Bicyclist left sidewalk, entering
roadway, and attempted to go around a semi
truck and trailer leaving a business driveway.
The semi was beginning a right hand turn to
travel westbound onto Southern Avenue. The
bicycle struck the semi tractor. Both the
bicyclist and bicycle went underneath the semi.
The semi driver stopped immediately.
18 N Crave Creek
Road/ North 8th Street,
Phoenix. Daylight.
PHOENIX P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At A
Midblock Location:
Ride Out At
Midblock.
Bicyclist riding mid- block of North Crave
Creek Road when struck by motorist
traveling northbound on North Cave
Creek Road.
N/ A N/ A
19 S 16th Street/ E
Roeser Road,
Phoenix. Evening.
PHOENIX. P. D.
The Motorist
Failed To Yield To
The Bicyclist:
Drive Through.
N/ A N/ A Bicyclist westbound, in the south crosswalk of
the intersection, located at 16th Street and East
Roeser Road, when struck by motorist traveling
southbound on South 16th Street. The motorist
ran a red light and fled the scene after the
collision.
20 Edward Drive/ 16th
Street, Tempe.
Daylight. TEMPE
P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At An
Intersection: Ride
Out At Stop Sign.
N/ A N/ A Bicyclist southbound, exiting private drive, failed
to stop/ yield before entering 16th Street.
Bicyclist collided with a motor vehicle. Bicyclist
and bicycle were caught under the vehicle as it
continued westbound on 16th Street.
45
# LOCATION/
CITY/ TIME/
JURISDICTION
BICYCLE CRASH
TYPE
CRASH SYNOPSIS WITNESS STATEMENTS OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
21 E Thomas Road/ N
35th Street, Phoenix.
Night. PHOENIX
P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At A
Midblock Location:
Ride Out At
Midblock.
N/ A N/ A Bicyclist northbound across East Thomas Road
mid- block, when struck by motorist, who was
eastbound on Thomas Road approaching 35th
Street.
22 N Oracle Road/ W
Plata Street, Tucson.
Daylight. TUCSON
P. D.
Specific
Circumstances:
Weird— Non-
Roadway [ i. e.,
bike facility and
marked bus stop].
N/ A N/ A Bicyclist traveling in bike lane north on Oracle
Road. Bus was stopped at marked bus stop.
Passengers exited bus. Doors were then
closed prior to impact in rear of bus. Bicyclist
not wearing helmet.
23 Broadway
Road/ Signal Butte
Road, Mesa.
Daylight. MARICOPA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE.
The Bicyclist
Turned Or Merged
Into The Path Of
The Motorist:
Bicyclist Left Turn
In Front Of Traffic.
Elderly bicyclist westbound, adjacent to
curb on Broadway Road; made
southbound U- turn and was struck by
westbound motorist traveling in the
median lane. There is nothing to indicate
that excessive speed, impairment by
drugs and/ or alcohol were factors in the
collision.
Three witnesses say bicyclist was riding
westbound next to the north curb of Broadway
Road. He started to make a U- turn across the
westbound lanes. He turned directly in front of
the [ westbound motorist] who was traveling in
the median lane. The driver attempted to avoid
the collision by braking hard but struck [ victim]
with right front part of vehicle.
78 year old bicyclist westbound adjacent to the
north curb in the area of 119000 E Broadway
Road when [ bicyclist] made a southbound U-turn
and was struck by [ vehicle] which was
traveling on Broadway Road in the median lane
at a minimum speed range of 49- 52 in a posted
45 mph zone.
24 I- 10/ M. P. 154.8.
Dark. Tempe.
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY.
Specific
Circumstances:
Weird— Non-
Roadway [ i. e.,
bicycles prohibited
on controlled
access highway].
Motorist states: Traveling eastbound on
I- 10 and taking ramp to U. S. 60
eastbound in the # 1 lane of the ramp;
didn’t see bicyclist come from the right
side until too late. Hit brakes as [ motorist]
struck bicyclist and bicyclist came up and
hit windshield. Still on brakes hard so
bicyclist flew off the hood and ended up
on ground over in the gore area.
N/ A Based on evidence at scene … collision
occurred because [ bicyclist] was on a controlled
access highway where bicyclists are not
allowed. There are signs posted at the on-ramps
to the highways prohibiting pedestrians
and bicycles … . It is unknown where bicyclist
entered highway … I was unable to locate any
lights on the bike or in the debris field and the
only reflectors were on the pedals … [ victim]
wore dark clothing.
46
# LOCATION/
CITY/ TIME/
JURISDICTION
BICYCLE CRASH
TYPE
CRASH SYNOPSIS WITNESS STATEMENTS OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
25 SR 89/ MP 312.6,
Prescott. Dusk;
streetlights on.
ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At A
Midblock Location:
Ride Out At
Midblock.
Motorist stated: Northbound on SR 89 by
SR 69 junction at about 40 MPH. Looked
in rear view mirror, then looked straight
ahead. Heard a passenger say ‘ Watch
out’. Saw a bicyclist crossing the road
ahead. Bicyclist came from right side of
roadway. Swerved in an attempt to avoid
bicycle, but bicycle and bicyclist hit
windshield of car and bounced off onto
roadway.
Front seat passenger in motorist’s vehicle
stated: Saw bicycle coming from right side of
road; bicycle started to cross road right in front
of car. Yelled at motorist, who swerved to
avoid bicycle. Struck bicycle and rider hit
windshield.
Rear seat passenger in motorist’s vehicle
stated: Looking forward when bicycle
appeared out of nowhere from the right side;
they hit bicycle.
Based on statements of motorist and witnesses,
and physical evidence at the scene, it was
determined that [ bicyclist] caused this collision.
26 W Baseline Road/ S
Longmore Road,
Mesa. Daylight.
MESA P. D.
The Motorist
Failed To Yield To
The Bicyclist:
Drive Through.
Motorist westbound on W Baseline Road
[ speed limit 35 MPH during school hours,
45 MPH at other times] within middle
lane, when motorist reportedly ran a red
light and struck 13 year old bicyclist who
was traveling southbound on west side of
intersection and within the marked
crosswalk
Witness: Traffic signal for north and
southbound traffic was definitely green when
[ motorist] entered intersection and light was
green for at least one to two seconds before
the collision, Estimated that motorist’s speed
was 45- 50 MPH.
Witness: Thought [ motorist] was traveling
about 45- 50 MPH. Sure that light was red
while motorist was in intersection, but unsure
when it changed.
After completing my [ police investigator’s]
investigation, I believe there is sufficient
evidence to show that motorist ran a red light
killing [ 13 year old bicyclist] while motorist had
no insurance on vehicle and vehicle registration
was suspended for mandatory insurance
reasons.
27 W Van Buren
Street/ N 15th Avenue,
Phoenix. Daylight.
PHOENIX P. D.
The Bicyclist
Failed To Yield To
The Motorist At A
Midblock Location:
Ride Out At
Midblock.
N/ A N/ A Bicyclist was crossing W Van Buren Street near
N 15th Avenue when bicyclist collided with an
eastbound vehicle in the curb lane of W Van
Buren Street.
47
# LOCATION/
CITY/ TIME/
JURISDICTION
BICYCLE CRASH
TYPE
CRASH SYNOPSIS WITNESS STATEMENTS OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
28 E Brown
Road/ Lindsay, Mesa.
Daylight. MESA P. D.
Specific
Circumstances:
Weird— Motorist
Arrested For
Manslaughter,
DUI, Speeding.
Bicyclist was crossing Brown Road from
north to south, east of the SRP canal.
Motorist was traveling west on Brown
Road at speeds greater than 75 MPH.
Motorist struck bicyclist, who was killed
instantly. Motorist was investigated for
impairment by drugs and was arrested
and booked into the Maricopa County Jail
for manslaughter.
N/ A The roadway evidence and vehicle damage
was consistent with the following: The motorist
was traveling westbound on E Brown Road in
the westbound # 1 lane, approaching the canal
bridge east of Lindsay. A conservative estimate
[ of motoris