Skip navigation

The following useful resource is on-line at

It draws the following important conclusions, and also lists a variety of relevant studies from both here and abroad:

In a review of 28 studies of bicycle facilities and accidents both in the U.S. and abroad, listed below, these are the results:

21 conclude that bicycle facilities increase the risks to cyclists

4 suggest that bicycle facilities are safer than the road

And 3 (Cross 1977, Reid 2002 and Pucher 2011) do not really address infrastructure safety.

CONCLUSION: 84% of the safety studies of bicycle facilities conclude that they are more dangerous than the road.

The studies are listed below chronologically:

1972 Deleuw, Cather and Co.: Davis Bicycle Circulation and Safety Study
“An additional problem is establishment of a visual relationship between motor vehicles and cycles on the sidewalk path on approaches to intersections.”

1975 Kaplan: Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User
“Surprisingly, bicycle facilities where no motor vehicles are allowed showed the highest accident rate of any variable examined.”

1977 Cross: A Study of Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Accidents (USA)
Possible bias in reporting, investigation. Study reaches no clear conclusions about the safety or otherwise of bicycle infrastructure, and many of the conclusions have been called into question by more recent studies. I think the study does remain useful thanks to its detailed crash type analysis.

1987 Grüne Radler review: Police Bicycle Crash Study (Berlin, Germany)
“…with increasing experience, it became ever clearer that the sidepaths are dangerous – more dangerous than riding in the roadway. There is a simple reason for this: the design and location of the sidepaths conflict with the most important principle of traffic safety, the slogan ‘Visibility is safety’.”

1987 Study, University of Lund (Sweden)
“The basis for the comparison is the crash risk of bicyclists traveling straight through on the roadway. Relative to this, the risk is:
1.1 times for through travel with a bike lane stripe.
3.4 times for a left turn on the roadway
3.4 times for through travel on a sidepath
11.0 times for a left turn from a sidepath
11.9 times for through travel on a sidepath on the left side of the roadway”

1992 Allgemeiner Deutscher Fahrrad-Club: Issues of Bicycling Safety
“Experts from different backgrounds at the Velo Secur traffic safety conference in Salzburg were united in the opinion that sidepaths in urban areas are entirely unsatisfactory in many ways, and should not be used.”

1994 Gårder: Safety implications of bicycle paths at signalized intersections (Scandinavia)
“The conclusion that can be drawn so far from combining results shows that the most likely effect of introducing a cycle path is that the risk will increase by about 40% for a passing cyclist.”

1994 Wachtel: Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections (Palo Alto, California, USA)
“Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections… intersections, construed broadly, are the major point of conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles. Separation of bicycles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at these intersections.”

1997 Moritz: A Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters (USA and Canada)
Possible measurement bias: study claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but the accident site data appears to be flawed – many of the accidents taking place while on bicycle paths or lanes may have been considered to be on the roadway, because only the final crash site was considered.

1998 Aultman-Hall: Commuter Cyclist On- and Off-Road Incident Rates (Ottawa-Carlton, Canada)
“The relative rates for falls and injuries suggest it is safest to cycle on-road followed by off-road paths and trails, and finally least safe on sidewalks… Results suggest a need to discourage sidewalk cycling, and to further investigate the safety of off-road paths/trails.”

1998 Moritz: Adult Bicyclists in the United States (USA)
“Multi-use trails have a crash rate about 40% greater than would be expected based on the miles cycled on them while cycling on the sidewalk is extremely dangerous.”

1998 OECD: Safety of Vulnerable Road Users (European Union)
“The most common conflicting areas between motorised traffic and vulnerable road users are at junctions… While cycle tracks have been found efficient in decreasing bicycle accidents on links, particularly on arterials, they create safety problems at junctions.”

1999 Aultman-Hall: Bicycle Commuter Safety Rates (Toronto, Canada)
“The relative rates for falls and injuries suggest these events are least common on-road followed by off-road paths, and finally most common on sidewalks… These rates suggest a need for detailed analysis of sidewalk and off-road path bicycle safety.”

1999 Franklin: Two Decades of the Redway Cycle Paths (Milton Keynes, UK)
“…the most alarming experience of the Redways is their accident record. Far from realising gains in safety, they have proved over many years to be consistently less safe than even the ‘worst case’ grid roads for adult cyclists of average competence. This is not an accolade for the grid roads, for their safety performance is not good in relation to lower speed roads of more traditional design. But the segregated Redways have proved to be worse. ”

1999 Pasanen: The risks of cycling (Helsinki, Finland)
“At crossings, car drivers focus their attention on other cars rather than on cyclists… the risk of a crossing accident is 3-times higher for cyclists coming from a cycle path than when crossing on the carriageway amongst cars.”

2000 Franklin: Cycle Path Safety: A Summary of Research (Worldwide)
“little evidence has been found to suggest that cyclists are safer on paths than on roads.”

2002 Reid: The Roots of Driver Behaviour Towards Cyclists (UK)
“The tendency for drivers to criticise cyclists and to exonerate errors made by drivers can be explained by reference to Social Identity Theory… Drivers regard themselves as intending to behave cautiously around cyclists and yet feel pressurised by other drivers to behave incautiously… It was also notable that drivers rated cyclists as less considerate, even though the cyclist’s behaviour was identical, when encountering them at road narrowings… Cyclists are an ‘out’ group and their behaviour is considered to be inexplicable other than by reference to their status as cyclists.”

2007 Jensen: Bicycle Tracks and Lanes, a Before – After Study (Copenhagen, Denmark)
“The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase of about 10 percent in both crashes and injuries. The safety effects of bicycle lanes in urban areas are an increase of 5 percent in crashes and 15 percent in injuries. Bicyclists’ safety has worsened on roads where bicycle facilities have been implemented.”

2008 Agerholm: Traffic Safety on Bicycle Paths (Western Denmark)
“So the main results are that bicycle paths impair traffic safety and this is mainly due to more accidents at intersections.”

2008 Jensen: Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities (Copenhagen, Denmark)
“The cycle tracks constructed have resulted in increases in accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed roads.”

2009 Daniels: Injury crashes with bicyclists at roundabouts (Flanders, Belgium)
“Regarding all injury crashes with bicyclists, roundabouts with cycle lanes appear to perform significantly worse compared to… other design types”

2009 Reynolds: The Impact of Transportation Infrastructure on Bicycling Injuries and Crashes: A Review of the Literature
Cherry picking data: review claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but the review cherry picks and misrepresents data – only the 2009 Daniels study (out of 26 studies reviewed) concerned bicycle specific infrastructure safety, and the review misrepresented its findings.

2011 Lusk: Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street (Montreal, Canada)
The infamous Lusk study. Selection bias: study claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but its street comparisons are flawed – the streets compared were in no way similar other than their general geographic location. Busy downtown streets with multiple distractions per block were twinned with bicycle tracks on quieter roads with fewer intersections and fewer distractions.

2011 Pucher: Bicycling renaissance in North America? (Worldwide)
Often cited by infrastructure advocates as a ‘bicycle facility safety study’, this is a review of studies on cycling trends and policies. It covers safety only in a general sense and while it states an opinion on bicycle facilities, it does not cite any studies pertaining to them. The main point the review makes in terms of cycling safety is in reference to the ‘safety in numbers’ effect and its ability to increase cycling mode share, but this effect is shown to be false if new cyclists are mostly coming from a much safer mode of transportation, such as mass transit.

2011 Reid: Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety (UK)
“…evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways offer heightened risk, potentially of sufficient magnitude to offset the safety benefits of removing cyclists from contact with vehicles in other locations.”

2012 Teschke: Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study
Selection bias: uses comparison streets instead of a before-after situation; study claims greatly increased safety on cycle tracks, but the cycle tracks chosen for the study were not representative of a typical cycle track, in that all were on roads with limited or nonexistent road intersections. It is not surprising that bicycle facilities that have little or no possibility of interaction with motor vehicles are safer than those that have many such possibilities, and if all bicycle tracks were completely separated from turning and crossing traffic, they would indeed be safer than cycling on the road. The problem is, cycle tracks with few road intersections are very rare indeed.

2012 Kittleson & Associates Report (Washington DC)
Report found:
Bike boxes, bicycle signals and sharrows were installed at the 6 leg intersection of New Hampshire Ave/16th St/U St NW.: after the installation, crashes increased from 4 in 4 years to 5 crashes in 13 months. Per month, that is the equivalent of more than 4 times the number of crashes. The report notes no increase in bicycle volumes.
Pennsylvania center cycletrack: after the installation, crashes increased from 9 in 4 years to 16 crashes in 14 months – 6 times more crashes per month. Taking into account the fact that bicycle volume tripled, crashes still increased by a factor of 2.
15th St NW left side cycletrack: after installation, crashes increased from 20 in 4 years to 13 crashes in 14 months – over twice as many crashes per month. Taking into account the fact that cyclist volumes doubled, this represents an increase in crashes of 10%.
Strangely, despite these significant increases in crashes, the report states that the bicycle facilities “improved conditions for cycling”. If this is an improvement, perhaps installing anti-personnel mines every few hundred yards or so might make a bigger ‘improvement’.

2012 City of Portland Bureau of Transportation Progress Report: Request to Experiment “9-105(E) – Colored Bike Lanes and Bike Boxes”
“…the crash data trend suggests that right-hook crashes are increasing at some of the treatment locations… We concluded that a high proportion (88%) of the crashes occurred during the ‘stale’ green condition (after the start-up but before the signal phase changes to yellow/red).”
Cycling experts have, for years, been warning about this fundamental flaw in bike box design. The 1997 edition of ‘Cyclecraft’ by John Franklin advises cyclists that they should approach bike boxes only if the traffic signal is red. If the signal is green, cyclists are advised that the best way to minimize danger may be to stay within the main traffic stream.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: