Cyclist Compliance at Signalized Intersections

Transcription

1 Portland State University PDXScholar TREC Friday Seminar Series Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) Cyclist Compliance at Signalized Intersections Sam R. Thompson Portland State University Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Transportation Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Thompson, Sam R., "Cyclist Compliance at Signalized Intersections" (2013). TREC Friday Seminar Series This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in TREC Friday Seminar Series by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact

2 Bicyclist Compliance at Signalized Intersections: The makings of a thesis Presenter: Sam R. Thompson, E.I.T Graduate Research Assistant Portland State University Civil & Environmental Engineering Friday Transportation Seminar November 15, 2013

3 Why study cyclist compliance? Growing mode of utilitarian travel ú Room for further growth Increasingly bicycle- friendly transportation policy Decline in car use by younger generations Large percentage of trips are bikeable (under 3 miles) Little is known about the actual compliance rates for cyclists in the United States. ú Much anecdotal evidence of cyclist non- compliance. 2

4 Origins of the study Part of Operational Guidance for Bicycle- specific Traffic Signals project with ODOT ú DISCLAIMER 3

5 Data Collection Two data sources: ú City of Portland Archived from previous research 3 intersections ú Portland ú Bicycle- specific Signals ú Portland State Project- specific 4 intersections ú Varying intersection characteristics/locations City of Portland Footage PSU Camera Setup PSU Study- Specific Footage 4

6 Data Reduction Cyclists were eligible to become part of the study if they were observed to: ú Arrive on the red indication ú Utilize bicycle infrastructure (and bicycle signal where applicable) on both sides of the intersection 5

7 Data Reduction Three types of data collected: ú Descriptive ú Event ú Compliance- specific Clothing Type: Casual Helmet: Yes Car in Adjacent Lane: Yes Sex: Male Bike Type: Mountain Cargo: Yes 6

8 Compliance Indicators Compliant Non- compliant 1. Gap Accepted 2. Signal Jump 7

9 Compliance Indicators Gap Accepted 8

10 Compliance Indicators Signal Jump 9

11 Results Total of 2,617 cyclists Compliance Rate: 89.7% Compliance Indicator Percent Number of Observations Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump Other

12 Comparison to Other Modes The average non- compliance rate for pedestrians is 15.8% 2. ú Cyclists in this study had combined violation rate for signal jumps and accepted gaps of 7.8% Motorists were found to run red indications at a rate of 1.3% 3. ú Cyclists in this study accepted gaps at a rate of 4.5%. 11

13 Compliance at Bike-Specific Signals 100% 75% Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump 50% Other 25% 0% No Bike Signal Bike Signal 12

14 Compliance per Location 100% 75% Compliant Gap Accepted 50% Signal Jump Other 25% 0% 13

15 Compliance by Presence of Cargo 100% 75% Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump 50% Other 25% 0% No Cargo Some Cargo 14

16 Compliance by Helmet Use 100% 75% Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump 50% Other 25% 0% Helmet No Helmet 15

17 Compliance by Peak Period 100% 75% Compliant Gap Accepted Signal Jump 50% Other 25% 0% AM PM Off Peak 16

18 Compliance by Wait Time 100% 75% Gap Accepted Signal Jump 50% Other 25% 0% Wait Time (sec) 17

19 Gap Accepted by Cross Traffic 4 Ratio of Accepted Gap to AASHTO BCT Cross Traffic (veh/hr) 18

20 Outcomes Compliance at bicycle- specific signals is comparable to compliance at traditional signals ú Cyclists understand bicycle signals Observed compliance nearly 90% 19

21 Continuing Work Further analysis needed ú Previous analysis was descriptive ú Varying compliance at study locations ú Risk- taking profile for non- compliant cyclists More likely to not wear a helmet Not influenced by wait time Minimum gap accepted equal to or less than minimum crossing time (determined by AASHTO) for high volume intersections. 20

22 Continuing Work -- Modeling [PRELIMINARY] Factors Affecting Gap Acceptance # Cyclists Already Waiting Sex = Female Cross Traffic Squared Lack of helmet 21

23 Continuing Work Survey Personality type Justifications Intersection types Demographics 22

24 Acknowledgements Oregon DOT Research Project TAC OTREC and Oregon DOT Dr. Christopher Monsere, Dr. Miguel Figliozzi, Kirk Paulsen All the potential takers of the attitudes survey 23

25 Questions? Sam Thompson Find interim report, TRB papers, and presentations at * Opening photo credit via flickr 24

26 References for Discussion 1. Zeeger, C. V., & Cynecki, M. J. (1985). Determination of Motorist Violations and Pedestrian- related Countermeasures Related to Right- Turn- On- Red. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1010), Virkler, M. R. (1998). Pedestrian Compliance Effects on Signal Delay. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1636), Retting, R. A., Williams, A. F., Farmer, C. M., & Feldman, A. F. (1999). Evaluation of Red Light Camera Enforcement in Oxnard, California. Accident Prevention & Analysis, 31,