Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe

Table of Contents

PDF Version (3.4 mb)

Technical Report Documentation Page

Executive Summary

• Introduction
• Summary of Findings and Conclusions
• Implementation Plan
• Next Steps

Chapter 1 – Introduction

• Background
• Purpose and Objectives
• Host Country Information
• Scan Team Members
• Report Organization

Chapter 2 – Comprehensive Approach to Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility

• Policies and Factors Influencing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility
• Historical Perspective and Changes in Policies and Culture
• Safety in Numbers.
• Key Findings

Chapter 3 – Engineering and Design Elements

• Implementing Foreign Design Practices in the United States
• False Sense of Security and Safety
• Engineering and Design Elements for Pedestrians
• Engineering and Design Elements for Bicyclists
• Low-Speed Street Design
• Integration of Biking and Walking With Public Transit

Chapter 4 – Education Elements

• Traffic Safety Education for Children
• Traffic Safety Education for Adults
• Motorist Education and Awareness Programs
• Key Findings

Chapter 5 – Enforcement Elements

• Key Findings

Chapter 6 – Encouragement

• Route and Wayfinding Signs
• Route and Destination Planning
• Marketing Campaigns
• Shared and Rental Bike Programs
• Free Public-Use Bikes (City Bikes)
• Free Hotel Guest Use Bikes
• Utility Bicycle Designs
• Bicycle Service Facilities
• Bicycle Parking
• Bike Barometers
• Public Spaces and Pedestrian Service Facilities
• Key Findings

Chapter 7 – Evaluation

• Berlin, Germany
• Copenhagen, Denmark
• London, United Kingdom
• Lund, Sweden
• Potsdam, Germany
• Safety Evaluation Research
• Key Findings

Chapter 8 – Summary of Findings and Implementation Plan

• Summary of Findings
• Implementation Plan
• Appendix A – Amplifying Questions
• Appendix B – Scanning Study Itinerary and Meeting Schedule
• Appendix C – Host Country Contacts
• Appendix D – Scan Team Members
• Appendix E – Internet Resources for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

Figures

• Figure 1 – Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility scan team
• Figure 2 – Several land use and transport policies influence walking and biking in Copenhagen, Denmark
• Figure 3 – Deputy mayor of Copenhagen encourages commuter bicyclists with breakfast bagels
• Figure 4 – Historical bicycle mode share in several European cities
• Figure 5 – Before-and-after photos of StrØget in Copenhagen
• Figure 6 – Historical development of a pedestrian priority zone in Winterthur, Switzerland
• Figure 7 – Before-and-after photos of pedestrian priority zones in Winterthur, Switzerland
• Figure 8 – Before-and-after photos of public plaza in front of the Bundeshaus in Bern, Switzerland
• Figure 9 – Motorist waits for through bicyclists before turning right across cycle track in Copenhagen, Denmark
• Figure 10 – Near-side pedestrian signal with confirmation light in Bristol, United Kingdom
• Figure 11 – Automated pedestrian sensors for adapting signal timing for pedestrians in Bristol, United Kingdom
• Figure 12 – Offset pedestrian crossing at a signalized intersection in Bristol, United Kingdom
• Figure 13 – Near-side traffic signals in Bern, Switzerland
• Figure 14 – Raised crosswalk at two-lane roundabout exit in Malmö, Sweden
• Figure 15 – Median island with unmarked crosswalk in London, United Kingdom
• Figure 16 - Railing is used to direct pedestrians to preferred crossing locations in London, United Kingdom
• Figure 17 - Smooth, accessible path on cobblestone sidewalk in Copenhagen, Denmark
• Figure 18 - Tactile sidewalk strips leading to front door of public building in Copenhagen, Denmark
• Figure 19 - Intersection accessibility features for pedestrians with visual impairments
• Figure 20 – Cycle track in Copenhagen, Denmark
• Figure 21 - Two-way cycle path in Winterthur, Switzerland
• Figure 22 - One-way cycle path in Berlin, Germany
• Figure 23 - Cycle path on an independent alignment in Malmö, Sweden
• Figure 24 - Advance stop lines for onstreet through and left-turn bike lanes in Bern, Switzerland
• Figure 25 - Convex mirrors improve bicyclist visibility for drivers of large or high-profile vehicles in Bern, Switzerland
• Figure 26 - Bike boxes provide better visibility for turning bicyclists in London, United Kingdom
• Figure 27 - Bicycle traffic signals control bicycle traffic movements at signalized intersections in Potsdam, Germany
• Figure 28 - Colored bike lane at potential conflict area in Winterthur, Switzerland.
• Figure 29 - Dashed bike lane provides guidance through a wide intersection in OsnabrÜck, Germany
• Figure 30 - Bike symbols oriented to motorists turning at a driveway in Berlin, Germany
• Figure 31 - Dashed bike lane in Potsdam, Germany
• Figure 32 - “Green wave” cycle track in Copenhagen, Denmark, on which traffic signals are synchronized to bicyclist speeds
• Figure 33 - Residential street in Bern, Switzerland, with pedestrian priority posted with 20 km/h speed limit
• Figure 34 - Pedestrian priority zone in commercial area of Winterthur, Switzerland.
• Figure 35 - Retractable bollards provide access to pedestrian streets for authorized users in Bern, Switzerland
• Figure 36 – A variety of bike parking is provided at transit stations
• Figure 37 - Bike-friendly steps in a multilevel transit station in Lund, Sweden
• Figure 38 - Children’s Traffic Club Web site in the United Kingdom
• Figure 39 - Aerial view of reduced-scale closed course for traffic safety education for children in Winterthur, Switzerland
• Figure 40 - Closed-course traffic safety education for children in Winterthur, Switzerland
• Figure 41 - Transport for London’s pedestrian road safety campaign for teenagers
• Figure 42 - Photo enforcement at a traffic signal in Bern, Switzerland
• Figure 43 - Route signs in Switzerland (left) and Germany (right)
• Figure 44 - National route and destination planning tool showing cycling routes in Switzerland
• Figure 45 - Incentives to reduce short car trips in Malmö, Sweden
• Figure 46 – Updated promotional banners to reduce "ridiculously short" car trips in Malmö, Sweden
• Figure 47 - Marketing material for cycling in Copenhagen, Denmark
• Figure 48 - City fleet bicycles in Malmö, Sweden
• Figure 49 - Rental bike in Berlin, Germany
• Figure 50 - Free public-use “city bikes” in Copenhagen, Denmark
• Figure 51 - Multifunctional bicycles were seen in all shapes and sizes
• Figure 52 - Bicycle tire air pump (top, "luft" is Swedish for “air”) and tools (bottom) provided at popular bicyclist locations in Malmö, Sweden
• Figure 53 - Bike counter (daily and year-to-date subtotals) and air pump in Copenhagen, Denmark
• Figure 54 - Bicycling trends in Berlin, 1951–2008
• Figure 55 - Key statistics from Copenhagen’s
• Figure 56 - Manual (top) and automatic (bottom) bicyclist counts in London
• Figure 57 - Short- and long-range walking and cycling targets in Lund, Sweden
• Figure 58 - Bicycle, car, and public transport usage trends in Lund, Sweden
• Figure 59 - Bicyclist-involved crash index trends in Lund, Sweden
• Figure 60 - Modal share trends in Potsdam, Germany, 1977–2003
• Figure 61 - Six-hour bicyclist counts on a major bridge in Potsdam, Germany, 1994–2006
• Figure 62 - Swedish research on relative risk at marked, signalized, and unmarked pedestrian crossings

Table

• Table 1 – Hosted locations for the pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility scanning study

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe

Technical Report Documentation Page

Publication No. FHWA–PL–10–010

February 2010

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe

Executive Summary

Introduction

In May 2009, a team of 12 transportation professionals from the United States with expertise in bicycling and walking visited five countries in Europe to identify and assess effective approaches to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility. The countries visited — Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom — were chosen because of their innovative approaches to nonmotorized transportation, as well as the potential transferability of their policies and practices. Some, like Denmark, experienced an increase in car use in the 1960s and 1970s and subsequently reoriented their transportation policy to give priority to bicycling and walking. The scan team heard presentations from and had informal discussions with the foreign hosts. During most visits, the scan team also went on guided field visits (by bike as well as by foot) to better understand and experience the design and operation of various walking and bicycling facilities. These field visits were invaluable in documenting the facilities through photos and video, observing traffic behavior, and experiencing firsthand how well a design or operational strategy worked.

The purpose of this scanning study was to identify and assess effective approaches to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility. The specific topics of interest were the following:

• Improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety—Approaches (engineering, education, enforcement, and policy) that have been successful in improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety
• Safe Routes to School programs — Approaches and policies for improving safety for child pedestrians and bicyclists, especially those that support programs like Safe Routes to School
• Monitoring usage levels and exposure — Quantitative methods of monitoring pedestrian and bicyclist usage levels (for example, counts and surveys) and exposure to crashes
• Safety research and evaluation — Recently completed or ongoing research and collaboration opportunities in pedestrian and bicyclist safety

The scan team identified numerous possible approaches to improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility in the United States. The scan team also prepared a list of implementation items for those approaches that should be pursued in the United States. This executive summary provides an overview of the team’s findings and recommendations.

Summary of Findings and Conclusions

The scan team gathered a considerable amount of information on various strategies and approaches that could be used to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility in the United States. This section highlights the most important findings from the scanning study. The "General Findings and Conclusions" section describes the broader issues and themes that emerged on the scan and provides a context for understanding the details provided in the body of the report. The "Key Findings" section provides details on specific topics and is organized around the 5E approach (an expanded version of the 3E approach commonly used in traffic safety improvements):

• Engineering — Designing and building infrastructure that is safe, convenient, and comfortable to use
• Education — Educating all transportation system users on safe and appropriate behavior
• Enforcement — Enforcing existing traffic laws
• Encouragement— Encouraging and promoting the use of sustainable travel modes
• Evaluation — Monitoring the results to ensure that goals are met

General Findings and Conclusions

• Implementing foreign practices in the United States will require a careful, evidence–based approach. Some policies, practices, and designs are easily transferrable and can be immediately implemented. However, implementing some foreign policies and design practices in the United States may require a safety evaluation and/or implementation criteria. For example, separated bicycle facilities should be evaluated in the context of typical motorist and bicyclist behavior and safety experience in the United States before being widely implemented. Separated onroad bicycle facilities may be quite effective in Denmark, for example, but their effectiveness may be at least partly a product of Danish culture and behavior or a result of their widespread implementation.
  
  However, foreign practices (like separated bicycle facilities) should not be dismissed outright simply because current American culture and behavior may be different. Culture and behavior can be changed, but these changes often occur over longer time periods than covered in a typical safety evaluation. For example, separated bicycle facilities could be evaluated at a few trial locations in the United States and show no clear safety benefits in a typical 1– to 2–year safety evaluation. But in 5 to 10 years, as more bicyclists use separated facilities and motorist and bicyclist behavior adapts, safety could improve dramatically. Unfortunately, this increase in safety would not be captured in typical safety evaluations because they do not capture long–term behavior changes. Many of the host countries have undergone a culture change over the past 40 years that has returned to an increased emphasis on walking and bicycling safety and mobility. Changes of this sort can happen if fostered by a careful, evidence–based approach.
• Numerous factors contribute to higher rates of pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements and higher walking and biking mode splits in the host countries. From all of the information the scan team gathered and everything it observed, it appears that higher levels of walking and biking safety and mobility are due to a deliberate combination of policies, approaches, and influences that include the following:
  • Integration of transportation and land use policy
  • Transportation planning and design policies that are mode neutral or that give priority to vulnerable road users (like pedestrians and bicyclists)
  • Political support at all levels, including elected officials, government staff, and the general public
  • Provision and pricing of motor vehicle parking
  • The high costs of owning and operating a private motor vehicle (sales tax, annual registration fees, gas, parking, fines for moving violations, etc.)
  • A comprehensive, continuous, integrated approach that includes elements such as the following:
    • Integration with and widespread availability of public transit
    • Connected onstreet and offstreet walking and biking networks
    • Ongoing promotional campaigns and activities
    • Traffic safety education for children throughout their school years
    • Visually rich, pedestrian–scale built environment
    • Prohibition against right turn on red except where specifically permitted
    • Routine photo enforcement
    • Numerous other policy and facility details that make walking and bicycling easy, convenient, and enjoyable
• Many of the foreign hosts have established an urban street user hierarchy that gives the highest priority to walking, biking, and public transit. The street user hierarchy has been developed to support a range of public policy goals, such as livability, sustainability, public health, climate change, and congestion management. The hierarchy guides decisions about transportation policy, planning, design, operations, and maintenance. For example, typical street design begins by considering the space needs of pedestrians and bicyclists first, rather than designating the motor vehicle space and then giving pedestrians and bicyclists the leftover space (if there is any). Another example from Sweden is its winter snow removal policy, which gives highest priority to streets with transit routes and bicycling facilities.
• "Safety in numbers" (also called "awareness in numbers") is a clear motivator behind the promotion of walking and bicycling as a safety improvement strategy. Most host countries indicated that they promoted walking and bicycling for a variety of reasons (lower overall transportation delivery cost, sustainability, space and energy efficiency, health and wellness, etc.), and improved safety was often mentioned as one of the outcomes of higher levels of walking and biking. Their rationale is that when pedestrians and bicyclists are a common element in the street environment, motorists expect their presence and take the necessary precautions at potential conflict points, such as when a motorist turns right across a through bicycle lane. Anecdotally, the scan team routinely observed this type of motorist behavior during field visits, in which motorists were more aware of pedestrians and bicyclists at conflict points. However, it is not clear whether this improved motorist awareness was due primarily to the increased numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists, or due at least in part to improved roadway designs, motorist education, and/or police enforcement.

Key Findings

Engineering

• There was thoughtful consideration of a "false sense of security and safety" when designing pedestrian and bicyclist facilities. This expression was mentioned numerous times by the engineers and planners responsible for facility design details. The host countries are not rashly constructing facilities to promote walking and bicycling without regard for safety. In fact, some host countries pay meticulous attention to crash and injury data to determine which road designs are safest for pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, Sweden has implemented nationwide the STRADA (Swedish Traffic Accident Data Acquisition) database that integrates police crash data and hospital admissions data. The STRADA database addresses the underreporting problem common to walking and biking, and gives Swedish engineers and planners a more complete picture of walking and biking safety.
• The scan team observed several innovative traffic signal features and design practices that have the potential to improve pedestrian safety in the United States:
  • Passive detection of pedestrians in crosswalks to truncate, extend, or cancel the pedestrian phase at traffic signals
  • Near–side traffic signals that reduce motorist encroachment on the pedestrian crosswalk
  • Near–side pedestrian signal heads placed to encourage pedestrians to view oncoming traffic
  • Raised crosswalks at unsignalized pedestrian crossings (applied at midblock locations, roundabouts, entrances to traffic–calmed districts, etc.)
  • Crossing islands, even if confined or limited space requires the use of smaller islands
  • Railing used to direct pedestrian movements to defined crossing locations
• The scan team observed several approaches and design practices that could be used to improve bicyclist safety in the United States:
  • Approaches to address right–turn crashes, such as advance stop lines for bicyclists, "Trixi" (heated convex) mirrors or other specialized motor vehicle–based mirrors, bike boxes, leading green phase for bicyclists, and right–turn–on–red restrictions for motorists
  • Separated facilities, such as cycle tracks, separated bike lanes, and shared–use paths with delineated space for pedestrians and bicyclists
  • Bicycle–specific traffic signals to reduce turning conflicts at signalized intersections
  • Pavement markings, such as dashed bike lanes through intersections, colored lanes at conflict points, and longitudinal bike symbols at driveways and stop–controlled cross streets (oriented to be seen by motorists turning across the bike lane)
• The scan team observed the use of low–speed street designs in both residential and commercial areas that were especially conducive to walking and bicycling. For example, the city of Bristol, England, has implemented 20 mile–per–hour (mi/h) (32.1 kilometer–per–hour (km/h)) "home zones" in its new residential development. Several cities in Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland also have implemented low–speed streets (20 to 30 km/h (12.4 to 18.6 mi/h)) in both residential and commercial areas. However, several foreign hosts indicated that certain conditions should be met for these low–speed street designs to operate properly:
  1. speeds of the different modes should be similar,
  2. flows (volumes) of users should be similar, and
  3. "see and be seen" is a critical design element.
• The scan team observed close integration of bicycling and walking considerations with public transit (including intercity rail) that makes longer intermodal commutes by bike practical as well as safer and more convenient. These considerations include the following:
  • A variety of bike parking solutions at stations, including plentiful and convenient bike racks, covered outdoor parking, and secured indoor parking
  • Policies that permit bikes on trains and buses, even during peak times
  • Bike rental or sharing programs located in or near train or bus stations
  • Channels or ramps on stairways that make it easier to use steps while pushing a bike
  • Public taxis with quick–mount bike racks for passengers

Education

• Many of the foreign hosts have pervasive and widespread traffic safety education programs for children. The education programs start at an early age and some continue through the teenage years. These traffic safety programs involve participation of a wide variety of organizations, including schools, businesses, civic organizations, police, public health groups, and parks and recreation departments. For example, several countries had a Children’s Traffic Club program that provided ongoing, age–appropriate safety material to parents and children, as well as fun learning activities. The city of Winterthur, Switzerland, uses a "traffic garden" (a landscaped, reduced–scale closed course that includes traffic signals, roundabouts, bike lanes at intersections, sidewalks, work zones, public benches, and other common traffic situations) to teach elementary school–age children to ride bikes safely in traffic.
• Bicycle helmet use is encouraged, but not required by law. The scan team found higher levels of bicycle helmet use than expected in the countries visited. Helmets were uniformly encouraged for children and adults. Most countries emphasized physical activity first and helmets second. Their rationale was that required helmet use discourages bicycling (physical activity), which could have a greater public health detriment than head injuries due to crashes. Bicycle helmet use was recognized not as a crash–prevention measure, but as the most effective countermeasure for preventing head injury from a bicycle crash.

Enforcement

• The scan team observed the widespread use of photo enforcement for traffic signals and speed limits. Although photo enforcement is viewed primarily as a tool for improving motor vehicle safety, better motorist compliance with speed limits and traffic signals also improves pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Encouragement

• Many of the foreign hosts use promotional programs and activities to encourage and enable more walking and biking. These encouragement activities are seen as a tool to meet their modal share goals as well as increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Many foreign hosts viewed higher levels of walking and biking as a way to improve safety (the "safety in numbers" effect). Where walking and bicycling are considered the norm, a certain amount of encouragement happens inherently, by example. Common examples of promotional programs and activities include the following:
  • Well–marked routes with wayfinding signs and printed maps
  • Web–based biking and walking route planning and maps, including extensive countryside pathways inviting tourists and other occasional users
  • Shared bike programs for public agencies, private companies, or the general public
  • Free or very low–cost public–use bicycles
  • Routine provision of quality bike racks at convenient locations
  • Employer–sponsored programs (bike–to–work incentives)
  • Marketing campaigns to reduce or shift short car trips
  • Public health–sponsored wellness and physical activity programs
  • Personalized travel planning

Evaluation

• Many of the foreign hosts provide regular performance reports on pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility. These performance reports measure the agency’s progress toward stated goals and outcomes, and are used to refine policies and strategies to ensure that goals are met. For example, the city of Copenhagen publishes a Bicycle Account every 2 years that reports on several measures, such as cyclist mode split, safety, and perceived comfort and safety. The most common pedestrian and bicyclist performance measures were usage (e.g., counts, mode share) and safety (e.g., fatalities and serious injuries), which were typically reported on an annual basis.
• Several cities provided a "showcase" counter in a highly visible location to demonstrate daily and annual bicycle use. Although this tool was noted to yield varying and, in some cases, inaccurate results, it was a point of pride and a reminder that what gets counted counts.

Implementation Plan

Based on the findings summarized in this report, the scan team developed the following implementation recommendations.

Policy

• Encourage transportation policy (at national, State, and local levels) that addresses the safety and mobility of walking, biking, and other nonmotorized modes so that these modes are given the highest priority in the road user hierarchy. This hierarchy, when integrated with public transit, simultaneously addresses numerous other public policy goals, such as livability, sustainability, public health, climate change, and congestion management. To implement this policy, establish specific and measurable outcomes with performance targets, including usage and safety experience (see the "Evaluation" recommendation in this section). Specific near–term actions include the following:
  • Revising, strengthening, and publicizing the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) policy statement Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach
  • Conducting a survey of domestic and international best practices related to policies that facilitate safety and increased rates of walking and bicycling. Such policies should be examined at Federal, State, and local levels. Examples include Complete Streets policies in the United States, the national bicycling plan for Germany, the United Kingdom Cycling City program, and Swiss legislation on human–powered mobility.
  • Developing a national strategy to improve education for transportation professionals on walking and bicycling design and planning
  • Completing a new National Bicycling and Walking Study that will set new mode share and safety targets for walking and bicycling

Engineering

• Evaluate and consider implementing innovative signal features and geometric designs to improve pedestrian safety at street crossings. Examples of pedestrian features that can be implemented now are as follows:
  • Raised crosswalks at pedestrian crossings (applied at midblock and roundabouts)
  • Passive detection of pedestrians in waiting areas and crosswalks to extend or cancel pedestrian phase
  • Accessible pedestrian signals with confirmation lighting
  • Crossing islands at pedestrian crossings, even on narrow roadway widths
  • Partial crossings at wide signalized intersections with wide medians (additional push buttons and pedestrian signals will be required)
  
  Examples of pedestrian features that could be implemented in the short term with appropriate evaluation are as follows:
  • Near–side pedestrian signal heads that encourage viewing oncoming traffic
  • Passive detection of pedestrians in waiting areas and crosswalks to truncate the pedestrian phase
• Evaluate and consider implementation of innovative strategies to improve bicyclist safety. Examples of bicyclist features that can be implemented now are as follows:
  • Convex mirrors
  • Right–turn–on–red car restrictions
  • Advance stop lines for bicyclists
  • Continuation of bike lanes up to intersections
  • Bike lanes between traffic lanes
  • Shared bike lanes and right–turn lanes
  • Bike routes on lower volume parallel roadways
  • Contraflow bicycle lanes
  • Path user divisions
  • Dashed bike lanes through intersections
  • Rotated or longitudinal bicycle symbols at driveways
  
  Examples of bicyclist features that would likely require evaluation are as follows:
  • Cycle tracks
  • Accommodating two–stage left turns at signalized intersections
  • Dashed bicycle lanes on narrow roadways
  • Railing separating pedestrians and bicycles at intersections
  • Colored lanes at conflict points
  • Reserving yellow for bicycle and pedestrian pavement markings
• Evaluate the applicability of lower speed street designs in residential and commercial zones. The evaluation should address the differences in application between residential and commercial areas, and should more clearly define implementation issues and application criteria for the design of low–speed streets in the United States that are practical, safe, and efficient for all road users.
• Develop guidance on best practices for integrating bicycle and pedestrian considerations into public transit, including intercity rail. These considerations include permitted times of bike boarding, bike parking, bikes on trains and buses, and bike sharing (e.g., city bike) programs. Two existing documents may partially address this need: Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 62–Integration of Bicycles and Transit (2005) and Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies (FHWA–SA–07–017). Based on a review of these documents, a best–practices guide may be desirable that includes any strategies observed during the scan that were not part of the two reports. Once a suitable guide has been identified or developed, Web conferences and other training should be provided to transportation and transit engineers and planners.

Education

• Institutionalize ongoing traffic safety education that starts at an early age, including knowledge and skill–based learning. Safety education programs can be multifaceted and include a variety of agencies and organizations for optimal delivery. To accomplish this, a national set of bicycle and pedestrian education standards and curriculum should be developed that establishes the minimum amount of information to be included and at what ages. The curriculum should incorporate practical applications of this safety information in safe settings such as a mock pedestrian crossing or the traffic garden concept.
• Unify all traffic safety campaigns (including bicycle and pedestrian safety) under a single national brand. For example, the United Kingdom’s Department for Transport has developed a road safety program called THINK! that includes educational materials for numerous safety focus areas. To accomplish this, the U.S. DOT should develop a single brand and require that it be included on all highway safety educational and communication materials it produces. U.S. DOT highway safety materials are disseminated through a wide number of partners, including national associations, State and local governments, law enforcement agencies, medical organizations, public health departments, vehicle manufacturers, and insurance companies.

Enforcement

• Promote the use of photo enforcement as a tool to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. FHWA and NHTSA already promote photo enforcement, and their Web sites (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/index.cfm and http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt) have extensive information on implementing speed and red–light–running campaigns.

Encouragement

• Develop and implement programs that encourage and enable regular walking and biking. Examples of these strategies include the following:
  • Web–based route planning
  • Walking and biking maps
  • Social marketing campaigns
  • Shared bike programs for the public or municipal employees

Evaluation

• Develop and implement a performance monitoring and reporting program that annually measures progress toward stated goals and outcomes. Key performance measures are usage and safety experience. Other measures include pedestrian and bicyclist facility condition and extent (e.g., mileage). Existing count and safety evaluation efforts (Alliance for Biking and Walking’s Bicycling and Walking in the U.S. Benchmarking Report, Alta/Institute of Transportation Engineers National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Program, FHWA’s National Bicycling and Walking Study) should be better coordinated and unified. National guidance should be given on a consistent format and a sampling strategy to develop national estimates. Additionally, the 1994 National Bicycling and Walking Study should be updated to reflect current conditions and renew or reestablish national goals for bicycling and walking safety and usage.

Next Steps

As evidenced in this report, the scan team identified numerous approaches in the host countries for improving walking and biking safety and mobility that merit consideration in the United States. The next critical step in FHWA’s International Technology Scanning Program is the implementation phase, which has already begun. Scan team members will communicate the key findings, promote implementation ideas, and help advance the adoption of the approaches and practices described in this report. Ultimately, though, the scan team will rely on champions from numerous agencies, organizations, and groups throughout the United States to put into practice policies and approaches that will ultimately increase the safety of walking and bicycling and the use of walking and bicycling for transportation.