Yielding behavior and traffic conflicts at cyclist crossing facilities on channelized right-turn lanes

Abstract Channelized right-turn lanes (CRTLs) improve traffic flow efficiency, enabling right-turning drivers to bypass traffic lights at signalised intersections (for right-hand drive countries). Many CRTLs provide crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. Previous studies examining the safety performance of CRTLs indicate that they increase overall safety levels but hint that safety issues regarding vulnerable road users exist. This study investigated these issues through site-based observations of yielding behavior and evaluated the effect of the priority rule on cyclists’ safety in two CRTL designs. Four locations in Belgium were selected for video observations: two where the priority rule favoured cyclists and two where motorists had priority. With regard to yielding, four types of crossing behavior were identified and defined. Independent of the priority rule, cyclists crossed the conflict zone first in most interactions without taking the initiative to cross first. Underlying reasons for motorists willingly giving away their right-of-way could not be determined, but possible courtesy or fear of inflicting injuries at vulnerable road users might be at hand. A safety evaluation was performed using two traffic conflict indicators (TTCmin and the TA value). High correlations between the two indicators were found (r2 > 0.83), but no conclusions about the safest priority rule for cyclists could be drawn. The results hinted, however, that locations with motorist priority and cyclists crossings from right to left (from the driver’s point of view) yields the highest proportion of safety critical events.

[1]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  A comparison of collision-based and conflict-based safety evaluations: the case of right-turn smart channels. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Safety performance functions using traffic conflicts , 2013 .

[3]  Christer Hydén,et al.  Estimating the severity of safety related behaviour. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  Karin M Bauer,et al.  Safety of Channelized Right-Turn Lanes for Motor Vehicles and Pedestrians , 2013 .

[5]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Safety evaluation of right-turn smart channels using automated traffic conflict analysis. , 2012, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[6]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Automated Safety Diagnosis of Vehicle–Bicycle Interactions Using Computer Vision Analysis , 2013 .

[7]  Lisa Sakshaug,et al.  Cyclists in roundabouts--different design solutions. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Geert Wets,et al.  Crash Patterns at Signalized Intersections , 2015 .

[9]  Mai-Britt Herslund,et al.  Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic. , 2003, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[10]  Geert Wets,et al.  Road Safety Differences between Priority-Controlled Intersections and Right-Hand Priority Intersections , 2013 .

[11]  Nicolas Saunier,et al.  Cross-comparison of three surrogate safety methods to diagnose cyclist safety problems at intersections in Norway. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Kay Fitzpatrick,et al.  Operation and Safety of Right-Turn Lane Designs , 2006 .

[13]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Traffic conflict standards for intersections , 1999 .

[14]  C. Hydén THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION: THE SWEDISH TRAFFIC CONFLICTS TECHNIQUE , 1987 .

[15]  Lars Åberg,et al.  Driver Behaviour in Intersections: Formal and Informal Traffic Rules , 2005 .

[16]  B E Peterson Proceedings: first Workshop on Traffic Conflicts, Oslo, 1977 , 1977 .