How to make more cycling good for road safety?

This paper discusses the current level of the road safety problems of cycling and cyclists, why cyclists run relatively high risks, and why cyclists may be considered as 'vulnerable road users'. This paper is based on peer-reviewed research which give some idea how to reduce the number of cyclist casualties. However, this research is rather limited and the results cannot (easily) be transferred from one setting or country to another: generalization of results should only be done with the utmost care, if it is to be done at all. Interventions to reduce cyclist casualties worldwide seem to be of an incidental nature; that is to say, they are implemented in a rather isolated way. In a Safe System approach, such as the Dutch Sustainable Safety vision, the inherent risks of traffic are dealt with in a systematic, proactive way. We illustrate how this approach is especially effective for vulnerable road users, such as cyclists. Finally, the paper addresses the question of whether it is possible to make more cycling good for road safety. We conclude that when the number of cyclists increases, the number of fatalities may increase, but will not necessarily do so, and the outcome is dependent on specific conditions. There is strong evidence that well-designed bicycle facilities-physically separated networks-reduce risks for cyclists, and therefore have an impact on the net safety result, for example if car-kilometres are substituted by bicycle kilometres. Policies to support cycling should incorporate these findings in order to make more cycling good for road safety.

Making minor rural road networks safer: The effects of 60 km/h-zones.

For safety reasons a maximum speed limit of 60km/h has been applied to minor rural roads in the Netherlands since 1998. To support this structurally, a part of these roads have also received additional physical measures in a so-called "low cost design" that is expected to reduce the number of traffic casualties by 10-20%. This measure has been implemented as much as possible in an area oriented way. To measure the design's effectivity, road safety in 20 specific rural areas was studied for 5 years before changes were implemented and, on average, 3.5 years thereafter. The study examined 851km of roads, and a control study was done on 2105km of comparable roads with a speed limit of 80km/h. Both the study and the control roads are managed by water boards. Results show that the measures implemented on the roads in the 60km/h-zones had statistically significant effects (p<0.05) on casualty accidents (-24% overall), especially at intersections (-44%). This high reduction is probably caused by the concentration of technical interventions at intersections. Both outcomes are somewhat higher than previously expected and are comparable with the outcome of a meta-analysis of safety effects on area-wide urban traffic calming schemes. However, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the 60km/h zones measures (€33,000 per prevented KSI-casualty) is much more favourable than the ratio in urban 30km/h-zones (€86,000 per prevented KSI-casualty).