Conflicts and Collisions between Pedestrians and Cyclists: Case - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Conflicts and Collisions between Pedestrians and Cyclists: Case Study of the University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus Filippos Gkekas Master of Community and Regional Planning Alex Bigazzi Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and School of Community and Regional Planning 11 th ICTCT Extra Workshop March 8 th – 9 th , 2018

Objective Identi tify fy Gain Propose opportunities to better understanding measures to mitigate make cycling and of cyclist-pedestrian this intermodal walking on campus conflicts on campus conflict safer, and more comfortable

Context Incre reas ase in UBC Incre reas ase in active Anecd cdotal tal evi videnc nce popula ulation trans nsport rtati ation n regard arding ng cyclist - trips on campus pedestri rian an By 2041 there is a confli lict cts projected (at least) Expected increase 44% increase of on-campus trips, as Lack of empirical people that will live, population will evidence regarding work, and study in increase, transit and intermodal conflicts UBC 1 cycling infrastructure will improve, and the introduction of a bike 1 UBC C+CP. (2015). Land Use Plan. Retrieved from share system https://planning.ubc.ca/vancouver/planning/policies- plans/land-use-governance-documents/land-use-plan

Context Pedestr trian n Priori rity ty Zone (PPZ) Cyclists are asked to travel at slower speeds and give priority to pedestrians in these areas PPZ Sign, Education sign about the PPZ at a bike Source: UBC C+CP parking on campus

Methodology ▪ Intercept survey in October 2017 ▪ 6 collection days ▪ Location: UBC Bookstore, UBC Sauder School of Business, AMS Nest ▪ 337 respondents (68,789 daytime pop) ▪ Survey data are representative based on 2016/17 UBC Vancouver population 2 2 University of British Columbia. (2017). Overview and Facts . Retrieved from https://www.ubc.ca/about/facts.html

Findings ▪ 97% walk lk on campus ▪ Similar to the 2017 UBC Transportation Survey* (93%) ▪ 51% bike e on campus ▪ 15% travel by transi sit or car * C+CP conducted a transportation survey in 2017 with 2,502 responses

Findings Are pedestri rian – cyclist st conflicts s an issue ue? 🏄

Findings Perceived intermodal conflicts ▪ Ped-Bike conflict, Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists on campus is a safety issue 70% agree ▪ 21% strongly agree ▪ Conflicts between pedestrians and motor Same proportion vehicles on campus is a safety issue (21%) strongly agreed in the UBC Transportation Conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles on campus is a safety issue Survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagre Somewhat agree Strongly agree

▪ 25% of the respondents had at least one Findings incident* ▪ At least 199 incidents from 89 respondents ▪ At least 113 walking lking, While ____ on campus in the past year, how many 66 cycling ling, and 20 times have you had an incident? skateb teboard rding ing incidents ▪ Walking incidents Specific details only about the most recent incidents (100 Cycling incident incidents) *Incident: When someone falls to avoid Skateboarding incidents contact, causes someone to fall, or made contact with a pedestrian, 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% cyclist, skateboarder, motor vehicle, or a non-moving permanent object (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4+ structure, ground)

Findings Who was involved in the incident? 100% ▪ Most incidents 90% involved at least a 80% 65% 70% cyclist and a pedestrian 63% ▪ 60% Alignment of perceived 44% 50% and experienced 40% 29% 29% conflicts 30% ▪ 20% 60% of the incidents 20% 9% 7% 10% took place in the 0% Pedestrian Priority Walking incidents Cycling incident Zone Contact with a non-moving permanent object A cyclist A pedestrian A vehicle

I feel safe walking/cycling on (sidewalks along) streets that motor vehicles also use on campus (e.g., West Mall, East Mall, Agronomy Rd, etc.) Findings Walking No incident At least one incident No incident Cycling ▪ At least one incident Cyclists feel less safe than pedestrians 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ▪ Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Cyclist perception of Somewhat agree Strongly agree safety is less related to whether they have I feel safe walking/cycling on non-motor-vehicle experienced incidents paths on campus (e.g., Main Mall) No incident Walking At least one incident No incident Cycling At least one incident 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Findings Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists on campus ▪ is a safety issue Incidents increase the perception of conflict for both modes No incident Walking ▪ Incidents were related to cyclists being more At least one incident aware of this as an issue, but not No incident Cycling necessarily feeling less safe themselves (i.e. At least one incident empathetic safety concern). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

Findings Did you report the incident to the police or any campus authorities? Walking incidents ▪ 97% of the incidents were not reported Cycling incident Skateboarder incidents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes No

Findings Severity of incident ▪ Regardless of severity Walking incidents 39 2 7 2 respondents did not report the incident ▪ 20% of the incidents Cycling incident 24 4 9 1 involved an injury* ▪ 20% of the injury Skateboarder incidents 11 1 incidents were reported 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No injury, no property damage No injury (property damage only) Minor (scrapes and bruises) Serious (hospital visit, not overnight) *Minor and Serious injuries

Findings If no, why did you not report the incident ▪ 79% considered the Walking incidents 39 5 6 8 4 incident minor or not necessary to report Cycling incident 26 2 3 1 5 3 ▪ 75% of the unreported Skateboarder 11 1 1 injury incidents did not incidents report it for the same 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% reason ▪ Thought the incident was minor/not necessary to report 19% of the unreported Don’t know who to call to report injury incidents Didn’t think the police/campus authorities would do anything thought that the police No time or campus authorities No one else involved wouldn’t do anything Other

Findings What are the primary ry factors s that lead to an incident or make people e perceive ve location ons s on c campus us as dangerous us? 🏄

Map with all the reported ed inci cidents Top-3 3 factors that contributed ed to the inciden ent Pedestrians Cyclists ts for self-assessed pedestr trians Inattention (53%) Inattention (70%) Pedestrians not Avoiding a cyclist abiding by the rules or pedestrian (18%) of the road (15%) Fatigue or Avoiding a cyclist sleepiness (15%) or pedestrian (10%) Cyclists ts Pedestrians for self-assessed cyclists ts Avoiding a Excessive speed pedestrian or (54%) cyclist (28%) Inattention (22%) Inattention (21%) Riding on the Riding on sidewalk sidewalk (16%) (11%) All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius

Map with all the reported ed inci cidents Top-3 3 factors that contributed ed to the incident Pedestrians Cyclists ts for self-assessed pedestr trians Inattention (53%) Inattention (70%) Pedestrians not Avoiding a cyclist abiding by the rules or pedestrian (18%) of the road (15%) Fatigue or Avoiding a cyclist sleepiness (15%) or pedestrian (10%) Cyclists ts Pedestrians for self-assessed cyclists ts Avoiding a Excessive speed pedestrian or (54%) cyclist (28%) Inattention (22%) Inattention (21%) Riding on the Riding on sidewalk sidewalk (16%) (11%) All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius

Map with all the locations perceived ed Map with all the reported ed inci cidents as hazardous All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius All reported hazardous locations with a kernel density of 50m radius

Top-3 3 location-sp speci cifi fic factors s Top-3 factors that make this s that contributed to the incident location dangerous Dangerous location for Pedestrians Cyclists ts walking/c /cyc ycling Over-crowded (76%) Over-crowded (81%) Too many pedestrians (53%) Bike lane was Sidewalk was Inadequate lanes or paths (36%) narrow/interrupted narrow (26%) (27%) Too many cyclists (32%) Bike lane was Sidewalk was narrow/interrupted narrow (24%) (14%) All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius All reported hazardous locations with a kernel density of 50m radius

Top-3 3 location-sp speci cifi fic factors s Top-3 factors that make this s that contributed to the incident location dangerous Dangerous location for Pedestrians Cyclists ts walking/c /cyc ycling Over-crowded (76%) Over-crowded (81%) Too many pedestrians (53%) Bike lane was Sidewalk was Inadequate lanes or paths (36%) narrow/interrupted narrow (26%) (27%) Too many cyclists (32%) Bike lane was Sidewalk was narrow/interrupted narrow (24%) (14%) All reported incidents with a kernel density of 50m radius All reported hazardous locations with a kernel density of 50m radius