Association of Infrastructure and Route Environment Factors with Cycling Injury Risk at Intersection and Non-Intersection Locations: A Case-Crossover Study of Britain
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Approach
2.2. Data Sources
2.3. Generation of Routes and Set of Controls
2.4. Route Environment Data
- Area type: urban/rural status, high street status (defined by clustering of retail premises), average small area deprivation.
- Road type: road class, road width, road gradient, speed limit, street connectivity for motor vehicles within the network.
- Nearby street infrastructure: Bicycle infrastructure, guard railing, bus lane, bus stop, metro/rail/tram stop, petrol station/car park, intersection status (proximity).
- Vehicle factors: average AM peak speed, parked cars, cycle commuter flow.
2.5. Statistical Modelling
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. Effects of Area, Road, Street Infrastructure and Vehicle Factors
3.2.1. Effects of Area-Type Variables
3.2.2. Effects of Road Type Variables
3.2.3. Effects of Street Infrastructure Variables
3.2.4. Effects of Vehicle Factors Variables
3.3. Examination of Differential Effects between Slight Injuries versus KSI
3.4. Examination of Differential Effects between Non-Intersection versus Intersection Points
4. Discussion
4.1. Summary Findings
4.2. Limitations
4.3. Strengths
4.4. Meanings of Our Findings and Policy Implications
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, P. Built environment factors in explaining the automobile-involved bicycle crash frequencies: A spatial statistic approach. Saf. Sci. 2015, 79, 336–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dozza, M. Crash risk: How cycling flow can help explain crash data. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 105, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lusk, A.C.; Furth, P.G.; Morency, P.; Miranda-Moreno, L.F.; Willett, W.C.; Dennerlein, J.T. Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street. Inj. Prev. 2011, 17, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vandenbulcke-Plasschaert, G.; Thomas, I.; De Geus, B.; Degraeuwe, B.; Torfs, R.; Meeusen, R.; Panis, L.I. Mapping bicycle use and the risk of accidents for commuters who cycle to work in Belgium. Transp. Policy 2009, 16, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strauss, J.; Miranda-Moreno, L.F.; Morency, P. Mapping cyclist activity and injury risk in a network combining smartphone GPS data and bicycle counts. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 83, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, T.; Doscher, C.; Page, S. Spatial characteristics of bicycle–motor vehicle crashes in Christchurch, New Zealand: A case-control approach. J. Transp. Land Use 2018, 11, 849–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aldred, R.; Goodman, A.; Gulliver, J.; Woodcock, J. Cycling injury risk in London: A case-control study exploring the impact of cycle volumes, motor vehicle volumes, and road characteristics including speed limits. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 117, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaplan, S.; Vavatsoulas, K.; Prato, C.G. Aggravating and mitigating factors associated with cyclist injury severity in Denmark. J. Saf. Res. 2014, 50, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teschke, K.; Harris, M.A.; Reynolds, C.C.O.; Winters, M.; Babul, S.; Chipman, M.; Cusimano, M.D.; Brubacher, J.R.; Hunte, G.; Friedman, S.M.; et al. Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study. Am. J. Public Health 2012, 102, 2336–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, H.; Graham, D.J.; Liu, P. Safety effects of the London cycle superhighways on cycle collisions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 99, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adams, T.; Aldred, R. Cycling Injury Risk in London: Impacts of Road Characteristics and Infrastructure. Transp. Find. 2020, 18226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandenbulcke, G.; Thomas, I.; Int Panis, L. Predicting cycling accident risk in Brussels: A spatial case–control approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 62, 341–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harris, M.A.; Reynolds, C.C.; Winters, M.; Cripton, P.A.; Shen, H.; Chipman, M.L.; Cusimano, M.D.; Babul, S.; Brubacher, J.R.; Friedman, S.M.; et al. Comparing the effects of infrastructure on bicycling injury at intersections and non-intersections using a case–crossover design. Inj. Prev. 2013, 19, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meade, S.; Stewart, K. The Visualisation of SiN in Edinburgh. In Proceedings of the 14th Scottish Transport Applications & Research Conference, Glasgow, UK, 22 May 2018; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Transport for London. Collisions Before and After the Removal of Pedestrian Railings at 70 Junctions and Crossings on the Transport for London Road Network; Report no. SB257; TfL: London, UK, 2017.
- Mulvaney, C.A.; Smith, S.; Watson, M.C.; Parkin, J.; Coupland, C.; Miller, P.; Kendrick, D.; McClintock, H. Cycling infrastructure for reducing cycling injuries in cyclists. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, CD010415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Twisk, D.; Davidse, R.; Schepers, P. Challenges in Reducing Bicycle Casualties with High Volume Cycle Use: Lessons from the Netherlands. In Cycling Futures: From Research into Practice; Gerike, R., Parkin, J., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon-Upon-Thames, UK, 2015; pp. 137–154. [Google Scholar]
Characteristic | Level | N (%) |
---|---|---|
Full sample | 3341 (100%) | |
Country | England | 3159 (94.6%) |
Scotland | 131 (3.9%) | |
Wales | 51 (1.5%) | |
Sex | Male | 2579 (77.2%) |
Female | 762 (22.8%) | |
Age | 0–15 | 293 (8.9%) |
16–24 | 415 (12.5%) | |
25–39 | 1276 (38.5%) | |
40–59 | 1139 (34.4%) | |
60–74 | 155 (4.7%) | |
75+ | 34 (1.0%) | |
Small-area | Fifth 1 (richest) | 546 (17.3%) |
deprivation | Fifth 2 | 569 (18.0%) |
of home | Fifth 3 | 642 (20.3%) |
Fifth 4 | 778 (24.6%) | |
Fifth 5 (poorest) | 623 (19.7%) | |
Injury severity | Fatal | 14 (0.4%) |
Serious | 578 (17.3%) | |
Slight | 2749 (82.3%) | |
Striking vehicle | No other vehicle | 188 (5.6%) |
Cyclist | 20 (0.6%) | |
HGV | 70 (2.1%) | |
Bus | 38 (1.1%) | |
Other motor vehicle, mostly cars | 3025 (90.5%) | |
Light conditions | Light | 2933 (87.8%) |
Dark | 408 (12.2%) | |
Weather | Fine, no high winds | 2708 (85.4%) |
conditions | Other | 464 (14.6%) |
Road surface | Dry | 2401 (74.3%) |
conditions | Other | 832 (25.7%) |
Category | Predictor | Level | n Points | % Injury Points | Univariable | Adjusted 1 | Adjusted 2 | Adjusted 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area Type | Urban | Rural | 464 | 47% | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Urban | 6218 | 50% | 1.41 (1.01, 1.96) | 1.31 (0.94, 1.83) | 1.15 (0.80, 1.66) | 1.19 (0.82, 1.74) | ||
High Street | No | 5953 | 49% | 1 *** | 1 *** | 1 *** | 1 ** | |
Yes | 729 | 61% | 1.85 (1.55, 2.20) | 1.58 (1.32, 1.89) | 1.48 (1.22, 1.80) | 1.32 (1.08, 1.62) | ||
Average deprivation | Change per standard deviation increase | - | - | 1.03 (0.96, 1.11) | 1.04 (0.97, 1.12) | 1.02 (0.94, 1.10) | 1.01 (0.93, 1.09) | |
Road type | Road class | Primary | 2561 | 58% | 1 *** | 1 *** | 1 *** | |
Secondary | 745 | 49% | 0.54 (0.44, 0.66) | 0.67 (0.53, 0.84) | 0.68 (0.54, 0.86) | |||
Tertiary | 1215 | 45% | 0.43 (0.36, 0.51) | 0.55 (0.45, 0.67) | 0.55 (0.45, 0.67) | |||
Residential or other | 2160 | 44% | 0.44 (0.38, 0.51) | 0.60 (0.49, 0.74) | 0.50 (0.40, 0.63) | |||
Road width | Change per 1 m increase | - | - | 1.16 (1.14, 1.19) *** | 1.11 (1.08, 1.14) *** | 1.10 (1.07, 1.13) *** | ||
Gradient | Change per 1% increase in incline (downhill = negative) | - | - | 0.97 (0.94, 0.99) * | 0.96 (0.94, 0.99) ** | 0.96 (0.93, 0.98) ** | ||
Speed limit | 20 mph or less | 1244 | 47% | 1 ** | 1 | 1 | ||
30 mph | 4633 | 51% | 1.34 (1.12, 1.61) | 0.95 (0.77, 1.18) | 0.95 (0.77, 1.18) | |||
40 mph | 395 | 52% | 1.51 (1.13, 2.03) | 0.90 (0.64, 1.26) | 1.10 (0.77, 1.57) | |||
over 40 mph | 347 | 50% | 1.31 (0.95, 1.82) | 0.91 (0.62, 1.32) | 1.10 (0.74, 1.62) | |||
Connectivity rank | 0–24% | 310 | 42% | 1 *** | 1 | 1 | ||
25–49% | 622 | 43% | 1.06 (0.80, 1.40) | 1.04 (0.77, 1.40) | 1.09 (0.80, 1.47) | |||
50–74% | 1246 | 47% | 1.31 (1.01, 1.70) | 1.17 (0.89, 1.55) | 1.33 (1.00, 1.76) | |||
75–100% | 4217 | 53% | 1.72 (1.34, 2.20) | 0.96 (0.72, 1.28) | 1.17 (0.87, 1.58) | |||
Nearby Street infrastructure | Bicycle infrastructure | None | 5203 | 48% | 1 *** | 1 *** | 1 *** | |
Track (no lane) | 571 | 53% | 1.29 (1.07, 1.56) | 1.19 (0.97, 1.46) | 1.18 (0.96, 1.45) | |||
Lane (no track) | 626 | 60% | 1.86 (1.53, 2.26) | 1.48 (1.20, 1.84) | 1.54 (1.24, 1.91) | |||
Track and Lane | 84 | 69% | 2.79 (1.70, 4.56) | 2.46 (1.45, 4.16) | 2.46 (1.44, 4.22) | |||
Other, e.g., sign | 142 | 50% | 1.13 (0.80, 1.59) | 1.23 (0.85, 1.78) | 1.39 (0.95, 2.03) | |||
Guardrail | No | 5598 | 49% | 1 *** | 1 ** | 1 * | ||
Yes | 1028 | 58% | 1.54 (1.33, 1.78) | 1.25 (1.07, 1.46) | 1.18 (1.01, 1.39) | |||
Bus lane | No | 6267 | 49% | 1 *** | 1 *** | 1 *** | ||
Yes | 359 | 68% | 2.51 (1.95, 3.23) | 1.81 (1.37, 2.39) | 1.84 (1.39, 2.44) | |||
Bus stop | No | 6016 | 50% | 1 | 1 ** | 1 ** | ||
Yes | 666 | 47% | 0.89 (0.76, 1.05) | 0.75 (0.63, 0.90) | 0.77 (0.64, 0.92) | |||
Metro/rail/ tram stop | No | 6642 | 50% | 1 * | 1 | 1 | ||
Yes | 40 | 70% | 2.60 (1.25, 5.39) | 1.72 (0.79, 3.76) | 1.52 (0.68, 3.36) | |||
Petrol station or car park | No | 6259 | 49% | 1 *** | 1 ** | 1 ** | ||
Yes | 423 | 58% | 1.47 (1.19, 1.81) | 1.48 (1.18, 1.85) | 1.43 (1.14, 1.79) | |||
Vehicle factors | 2-way average morning peak speed | Change per 10 mph increase | - | - | 0.81 (0.77, 0.86) *** | 0.78 (0.73, 0.84) *** | ||
Parked cars | No | 2649 | 52% | 1 ** | 1 | |||
Yes | 3977 | 49% | 0.86 (0.78, 0.96) | 1.00 (0.88, 1.14) | ||||
No. cycle commuters on segment | Change per 100 cyclists increase | - | - | 0.99 (0.95, 1.03) | 0.94 (0.90, 0.99) * |
Category | Predictor | Level | Non-Intersection Points (n = 1366 Points) | Intersection Points (n = 5312 Points) | P-Value for Interaction with Intersection Status, Adjusted 1 Models | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n points | % Injury Points | Adjusted | n points | % Injury Points | Adjusted 1 | Adjusted 2 | ||||
Area type | Urban | Rural | 177 | 48% | 1 | 287 | 47% | 1 | 1 | p = 0.57 |
Urban | 1191 | 50% | 1.91 (0.91, 3.99) | 5027 | 50% | 1.04 (0.66, 1.64) | 1.11 (0.68, 1.80) | |||
High Street | No | 1284 | 49% | 1 * | 4669 | 49% | 1 * | 1 ** | p = 0.43 | |
Yes | 84 | 68% | 1.79 (1.01, 3.19) | 645 | 60% | 1.28 (1.03, 1.59) | 1.44 (1.15, 1.80) | |||
Average deprivation | Change per standard deviation | - | - | 0.89 (0.74, 1.07) | - | - | 1.03 (0.95, 1.13) | 1.04 (0.95, 1.14) | p = 0.18 | |
Road type, first road | Road class | Primary | 434 | 56% | 1 * | 2127 | 58% | 1 ** * | 1 *** | p < 0.001 |
Secondary | 185 | 51% | 0.85 (0.51, 1.40) | 560 | 48% | 0.63 (0.49, 0.82) | 0.44 (0.33, 0.58) | |||
Tertiary | 271 | 53% | 1.15 (0.73, 1.81) | 944 | 42% | 0.44 (0.35, 0.56) | 0.34 (0.27, 0.44) | |||
Residential or other | 477 | 42% | 0.52 (0.31, 0.88) | 1683 | 45% | 0.47 (0.37, 0.60) | 0.40 (0.31, 0.53) | |||
Road width | Change per 1 m increase | - | - | 1.04 (0.95, 1.12) | - | - | 1.11 (1.08, 1.15) *** | 1.07 (1.04, 1.11) *** | p = 0.19 | |
Gradient | Change per 1% increase in incline | - | - | 0.97 (0.91, 1.03) | - | - | 0.95 (0.92, 0.98) ** | 0.95 (0.91, 0.98) ** | p = 0.75 | |
Speed limit | 20 mph or less | 218 | 48% | 1 | 1026 | 47% | 1 | 1 | p = 0.83 | |
30 mph | 885 | 50% | 0.83 (0.47, 1.49) | 3748 | 51% | 0.97 (0.77, 1.23) | 0.96 (0.73, 1.27) | |||
40 mph | 97 | 54% | 0.87 (0.38, 2.02) | 298 | 52% | 1.10 (0.74, 1.65) | 1.04 (0.63, 1.69) | |||
over 40 mph | 147 | 52% | 1.04 (0.45, 2.43) | 200 | 48% | 1.05 (0.66, 1.66) | 1.14 (0.64, 2.02) | |||
Connectivity | 0–24% | 65 | 40% | 1 | 245 | 42% | 1 * | 1 | p = 0.16 | |
rank | 25–49% | 126 | 42% | 1.03 (0.52, 2.03) | 496 | 43% | 1.08 (0.77, 1.53) | 1.07 (0.75, 1.52) | ||
50–74% | 260 | 46% | 1.26 (0.66, 2.42) | 986 | 48% | 1.36 (0.98, 1.88) | 1.28 (0.92, 1.78) | |||
75–100% | 801 | 54% | 1.65 (0.82, 3.32) | 3416 | 52% | 1.07 (0.76, 1.50) | 0.98 (0.69, 1.39) | |||
Road type, second road | Road class | Primary | - | - | 885 | 53% | 1 *** | - | ||
Not primary | - | - | 4429 | 49% | 2.04 (1.63, 2.54) | |||||
Road width | Change per 1 m increase | - | - | - | - | 1.08 (1.05, 1.12) *** | - | |||
Speed limit | 20 mph or less | - | - | 1100 | 49% | 1 | - | |||
30 mph | - | - | 3193 | 50% | 1.00 (0.77, 1.29) | |||||
40 mph | - | - | 192 | 53% | 0.92 (0.55, 1.56) | |||||
over 40 mph | - | - | 158 | 48% | 0.75 (0.42, 1.33) | |||||
Nearby street infrastructure | Bicycle | None | 1144 | 50% | 1 | 4059 | 48% | 1 *** | 1 *** | p = 0.09 |
infrastructure | Track (no lane) | 103 | 44% | 0.81 (0.49, 1.35) | 468 | 55% | 1.31 (1.04, 1.65) | 1.31 (1.03, 1.67) | ||
Lane (no track) | 74 | 62% | 1.68 (0.92, 3.05) | 552 | 59% | 1.52 (1.20, 1.92) | 1.60 (1.25, 2.05) | |||
Track and Lane | 9 | 78% | 11.84 (0.88, 159.8) | 75 | 68% | 2.23 (1.28, 3.90) | 2.34 (1.31, 4.18) | |||
Other, e.g., sign | 13 | 31% | 0.47 (0.12, 1.87) | 129 | 52% | 1.50 (1.00, 2.24) | 1.36 (0.90, 2.05) | |||
Guardrail | No | 1201 | 49% | 1 | 4397 | 48% | 1 | 1 | p = 0.80 | |
Yes | 142 | 59% | 1.31 (0.85, 2.00) | 886 | 58% | 1.18 (0.99, 1.41) | 1.14 (0.94, 1.37) | |||
Bus lane | No | 1288 | 49% | 1 | 4979 | 49% | 1 *** | 1 *** | p = 0.47 | |
Yes | 55 | 64% | 1.84 (0.88, 3.84) | 304 | 68% | 1.87 (1.37, 2.54) | 1.89 (1.38, 2.58) | |||
Bus stop | No | 1212 | 51% | 1 ** | 4804 | 50% | 1 | 1 | p = 0.24 | |
Yes | 156 | 44% | 0.57 (0.39, 0.84) | 510 | 49% | 0.82 (0.66, 1.00) | 0.90 (0.72, 1.12) | |||
Metro/rail/ | No | 1361 | 50% | [omitted] | 5281 | 50% | 1 | 1 | p = 0.99† | |
tram stop | Yes | 7 | 100% | 33 | 64% | 1.20 (0.52, 2.76) | 1.67 (0.70, 3.98) | |||
Petrol station or | No | 1314 | 49% | 1 | 4945 | 49% | 1 * | 1 * | p = 0.54 | |
car park | Yes | 54 | 63% | 1.73 (0.92, 3.22) | 369 | 57% | 1.38 (1.08, 1.77) | 1.34 (1.03, 1.74) | ||
Traffic signal | No | - | - | 4833 | 49% | 1 | - | |||
Yes, no ASL | - | - | 303 | 61% | 1.14 (0.84, 1.55) | |||||
Yes, with ASL | - | - | 178 | 59% | 1.26 (0.87, 1.83) | |||||
Roundabout | None | - | - | 4559 | 47% | 1 *** | - | |||
Roundabout | - | - | 557 | 69% | 2.98 (2.25, 3.95) | |||||
Mini-roundabout | - | - | 198 | 69% | 3.55 (2.39, 5.27) | |||||
Vehicle factors, first road | 2-way average morning peak speed | Change per 10 mph increase | - | - | 0.93 (0.79, 1.10) | - | - | 0.76 (0.70, 0.82) *** | 0.78 (0.72, 0.85) *** | p = 0.004 |
Parked cars | No | 584 | 51% | 1 | 2065 | 52% | 1 | 1 | p = 0.87 | |
Yes | 759 | 49% | 1.01 (0.76, 1.34) | 3218 | 49% | 0.99 (0.86, 1.14) | 1.06 (0.91, 1.23) | |||
No. cycle commuters on segment | Change per 100 cyclists increase | - | - | 0.95 (0.83, 1.08) | - | - | 0.94 (0.90, 0.99) * | 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) * | p = 0.86 | |
Vehicle factors, second road | 2-way average morning peak speed | Change per 10 mph increase | - | - | - | - | 1.17 (1.08, 1.27) *** | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Aldred, R.; Kapousizis, G.; Goodman, A. Association of Infrastructure and Route Environment Factors with Cycling Injury Risk at Intersection and Non-Intersection Locations: A Case-Crossover Study of Britain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063060
Aldred R, Kapousizis G, Goodman A. Association of Infrastructure and Route Environment Factors with Cycling Injury Risk at Intersection and Non-Intersection Locations: A Case-Crossover Study of Britain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(6):3060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063060
Chicago/Turabian StyleAldred, Rachel, Georgios Kapousizis, and Anna Goodman. 2021. "Association of Infrastructure and Route Environment Factors with Cycling Injury Risk at Intersection and Non-Intersection Locations: A Case-Crossover Study of Britain" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 6: 3060. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063060