Cyclist Activity and Injury Risk Analysis at Signalized Intersections: A Bayesian Modeling Approach (CAN)
14th May 2013
This Canadian study, published on 14th May 2013 (online) in the Journal Accident Analysis and prevention investigates cyclist injury occurrence and bicycle activity simultaneously using a Bayesian modeling approach. The presence of bus stops at intersections increases cyclist injury occurrence as well as the Presence of raised medians at intersections decreases cyclist injury occurrence. The authors propose a ranking approach for corridors in terms of injury risk criteria.
The Effectiveness of Helmets in Reducing Head Injuries and Hospital Treatment Costs: A Multicentre Study (AUS)
06th May 2013
This study published in the Medical Journal of Australia on the 13 May 2013, reports on the relationship between helmet use and head injury severity. The data was taken from hospitals in metropolitan sydney and involved a retrospective cohort of both pedal cyclists and motorcyclists. It found that patients identified with severe head injury, inhospital costs (AUD) were around three times higher in non-helmeted patients (median, $72 000) compared with helmeted patients (median, $24 000).
2011 Bicyclists & Other Cyclists Traffic Safety Fact Sheet (USA)
29th Apr 2013
The U.S. National Traffic Safety Highway Administration has released a fact sheet that details the numbers of cyclists killed and injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2011.
Shared (parking) space for bikes and cars in Copenhagen (Denmark)
26th Apr 2013
This case study, featured on the ELTIS Urban Mobility Portal showcases an innovative project from Copenhagen which allocates a flexible parking or "flex parking" space for both cars and bikes.
Congestion Costing Critique Critical Evaluation of the “ Urban Mobility Report" (US)
25th Apr 2013
Produced by the Canadian Victoria Transport Policy Institute and authored by Todd Littman in April 2013, the 'Urban Mobility Report' (UMR) is a widely-cited U.S. study that estimates U.S. traffic congestion costs.
This report critically examines the UMR’s assumptions and methods. The UMR evaluates urban transport system performance based only on vehicle traffic congestion; it ignores other modes and impacts.
It tends to exaggerate congestion costs and roadway expansion benefits. It assumes that urban traffic will grow rapidly in the future, ignoring evidence that vehicle travel is peaking and travel demands are changing. The UMR ignores basic research principles: it fails to explain assumptions, document sources, incorporate independent peer review, or respond to criticisms. More comprehensive and multi-modal planning can identify truly optimal congestion reduction strategies.