Research and analysis
Safety aspects of
contraflow cycling
Detailed analysis of accidents involving cyclists on cyclist contraflows in the
Brussels-Capital Region (2008, 2009 and
2010)
cyclist's vademecum for the brussels capital region
3
R esearch
and analysis
Cyclist contra-flows encourage more people to travel by bicycle, as they allow
cyclists to use safe routes and avoid unnecessary detours.
The aims of this study are to:
• evaluate the relative risk of cycling accidents in contra-flows compared to the rest
of the road network,
• determine the proportion of accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the
flow of traffic,
• understand the circumstances of recorded accidents in order to determine
whether the road layout could have contributed to their occurrence, and
• propose recommendations for the design of contraflow schemes with a view to
reducing the risk of accident.
It implements Action 8.3 of the 2011-2020 Road Safety Action Plan (Plan d’actions
sécurité routière/Verkeersveiligheid Actieplan) of the Brussels-Capital Region, and
pages 2.1 and 2.2 of the 2010-2015 Cycling Plan (Plan Vélo/Fietsplan) of the
Brussels-Capital Region.
Authors
Isabelle Chalanton (BRSI)
Benoît Dupriez (BRSI)
Contributors
Marc Broeckaert (BRSI), Patricia Courange (BM) Marianne Courtois (BM),
Florence Dekoster (BM), Frederik Depoortere (BM), Karl Determe (BM),
Yves Englebin (BRSI), Jean-François Gaillet (BRSI), Françoise Godart (BM)
Michèle Guillaume (BRSI), Isabelle Janssens (BM), Laurence Sailliez (BRSI),
Ulric Schollaert (BM), Arnaud Verstraete (De Lille cabinet)
Acknowledgements
We thank the College of Attorneys General, which allowed us to
consult the official accident reports; the managers and staff of the “traffic
accident” department at the Brussels Police Prosecutor’s Office, and the
police precincts of Brussels-Ixelles, Brussels-Midi, Polbruno, and UccleAuderghem-Watermael-Boitsfort for their warm welcome during the
analysis of the official reports; and Ms Caroline Zwaenepoel, of the Police
Operational Information Directorate of the Federal Police, who sent us
the essential identification numbers of the official reports.
Layout
Ria De Geyter (BRSI)
Glossary
BM Brussels Mobility
BIVVBelgisch Instituut voor de
Verkeersveiligheid (Belgian
Road Safety Institute)
IBSRInstitut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière (Belgian Road
Safety Institute)
BRSIBelgian Road Safety Institute
This brochure can be downloaded from the sites:
www.ibsr.be (webshop.ibsr.be) and www.bruxellesmobilite.irisnet.be
Disponible en français. Beschikbaar in het Nederlands
D/2014/0779/22
Publisher : Camille Thiry (Brussels Mobility)
March 2014
Cyclist
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Table of contents
3
Summary........................................................................................ 5
1 - Introduction.............................................................................. 7
1.1. Objectives of the study...............................................................................7
1.2. Background.................................................................................................7
1.3. Analysis of the literature............................................................................8
2 - Methodology........................................................................... 10
2.1. The mapping step......................................................................................10
2.1.1. Mapping the contra-flows.................................................................................. 10
2.1.2. Mapping of accidents......................................................................................... 10
2.1.3. Selection of the accidents to be analysed........................................................... 10
2.2. Analysis of the accidents...........................................................................11
3 - Initial observations................................................................ 12
3.1. Distribution and use of contra-flows.........................................................12
3.1.1. One in four streets in the Brussels-Capital Region is a contra-flow..................... 12
3.1.2. Over 4 in 10 cyclists on contra-flows travel against the traffic.......................... 13
3.2. General characteristics of accidents on contra-flows...............................14
3.2.1. What proportion of accidents occurred on a contra-flow?.................................. 14
3.2.2. What is the breakdown of accidents involving a cyclist on a contra-flow
between accidents at intersections and accidents on road sections?.................. 16
3.2.3. Are contra-flows more dangerous than the rest of the road network?............... 17
3.2.4. Are there more accidents when cyclists travel against the traffic?..................... 21
3.2.5. Are accidents involving cyclists travelling against the traffic on contra-flows serious?... 21
3.2.6. Is the breakdown of cycling accidents on contra-flows by age and gender significant?..... 21
3.2.7. Is the breakdown of cycling accidents on a contra-flow by time significant?...... 22
4
4 - Accident profiles.................................................................... 23
4.1. Accidents at an intersection......................................................................23
4.2. Accidents on a road section......................................................................27
5 - Points for discussion............................................................. 30
5.1. Does specific cycling infrastructure ensure safety?..................................30
5.2. What are the possible types of conflict on a contra-flow?........................31
5.3. Are narrow contra-flows more hazardous?..............................................33
5.4. Does the positioning of parking on the right or the left have an
impact on cyclist safety?...........................................................................35
5.5. Can profiles of the most dangerous road types be identified?.................37
6 - Conclusions............................................................................ 39
7 - Annexes.................................................................................. 41
8 - References.............................................................................. 44
Préalables
Summary
1
One street in four in the BrusselsCapital Region has a cyclist contraflow
There are 404 km (251 miles) of one-way
streets with cyclist contra-flow in the BrusselsCapital Region, accounting for 25% of the road
network open to cyclists. Nearly 91% of them
are local access streets (the “local network”),
6% are local collector roads, 2.5% are primary
collector roads, and 0.5% are arterial roads (the
“primary network”).
At 48% of intersections in the Region, one or
more of the streets has a contra-flow. This is
the case for 50.5% of intersections on the local
network, 56% of intersections on local collector roads, 44% of intersections on primary collector roads, and 34% of intersections on the
primary network.
Thus contra-flows constitute a significant part
of the Brussels cycling network and contribute
to high cycle permeability throughout the city.
Contra-flows are not road safety
black spots
Of the 992 cycle accidents analysed, 126 (or
12.7%) involved a cyclist travelling (in either
direction) on a road with a cyclist contra-flow,
entering an intersection from a contra-flow, or
crossing an intersection while heading towards
a contra-flow. Only 47 accidents out of 992, or
4.7% of all cycle accidents, involved a cyclist
travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow.
When the number of accidents by direction of
travel is compared with the number of cyclists
travelling in each direction, there are proportionally no more accidents involving a cyclist
travelling against the traffic than with the
traffic; in fact, there are slightly fewer. Studies
conducted abroad confirm that the introduc-
5
tion of contra-flow cycling has not caused a
rise in cycle accidents on the roads concerned,
and given the advantages it presents, it has an
overall positive effect on safety.
Of the 47 accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic, 31 (66%) occurred at
an intersection. For cyclists travelling with the
traffic, the proportion of accidents at intersections (40%) was below the overall average. On
sections of road away from intersections the
danger is therefore greater when the cyclist
is travelling with the traffic, but at intersections the danger is greater when the cyclist is
travelling against the traffic. Thus the risk of
accident to cyclists travelling with the general
traffic flow must not be underestimated, and
where necessary solutions must be found.
The highest accident risk for
cyclists is on the primary network
The type of road or intersection is a more decisive factor in the risk of a cycling accident than
the introduction of contra-flow cycling.
The risk of an accident occurring per km of
road is over 15 times greater on a road section or intersection on the primary network
than on a road section or intersection on the
local network. On the local network, where
most contra-flows are located, there are fewer
cycle accidents per km on sections of road with
contra-flow cycling than on sections of road
without contra-flow cycling.
On the basis of cyclist counts, the risk for
a cyclist of being involved in an accident is
approximately four times greater per km travelled on the primary network and twice as
great on local collector and primary collector
roads than on the local network.
summary
6
Failure to give way (yield) is the
most common cause of accidents
when the cyclist is travelling
against the traffic
The main causes of accident when a cyclist is
travelling against the traffic are:
• failure to give way (yield) (by one or other
of the two road users) at an intersection: 14
accidents
• p
oor positioning of the road users involved
at an intersection: 7 accidents
• v
ehicle turning at an intersection, cutting
across the path of an oncoming cyclist: 6
accidents
• v
ehicle leaving a parking space on a road
section: 6 accidents
• p
edestrian crossing a road section: 5 accidents
• o
ncoming vehicle on a road section: 4 accidents.
Studies conducted abroad confirm that most
accidents with a cyclist travelling against the
traffic take place at an intersection. Accidents
on a road section generally involve pedestrians
who fail to check whether a cyclist is coming in
the opposite direction.
.
Influence of the width of the
roadway and the positioning of
parking
The narrowness of streets does not appear
to be a major accident factor; narrow streets
are awkward, but the number of accidents
involving contra-flow cyclists is lower than the
proportion of such streets in the road network.
The risk to cyclists appears to be less where
parking is situated on the left (the main traffic
flow being on the right) than where parking
is situated on the right. Parking on the left
greatly reduces the risk of accidents involving
drivers opening car doors without looking,
but it involves two main risks for contra-flow
cyclists: it encourages the cyclist to veer
towards the centre of the road, which is a riskier position to be in when approaching intersections; and it can mask visibility for pedestrians
crossing between two vehicles without paying
attention to contra-flow cyclists. A follow-up
study would be useful to confirm this analysis
with a larger sample of observations.
Conclusion
Overall, the accident risk for cyclists travelling
on, entering or leaving a contra-flow is low.
Nonetheless, two conclusions can be drawn on
intersections: (a) intersections should be properly designed in order to reduce speeds and
increase mutual visibility; (b) road users should
be encouraged to take greater care when
approaching an intersection with a contra-flow.
7
1 - Introduction
1.1. Objectives of the
study
Brussels Mobility identified four objectives for
this study:
• e
valuate the relative risk of accidents for cyclists on contra-flows compared to the rest
of the road network;
• d
etermine the percentage of accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic;
• u
nderstand the circumstances of the accidents to determine whether the road layout
could have contributed to their occurrence;
• m
ake recommendations regarding road layouts with a view to reducing the accident risk.
Figure 2 - F19 + M4 road signs at the entrance
to a contra-flow
1.2. Background
Since 2004, highway authorities have been
required to authorise two-way cycling on oneway streets. They can only refuse to do so on
grounds of safety, such as insufficient road
width, lack of visibility at bends, or excessive
traffic speed that has not yet been reduced.
Cyclist contra-flows, known in Belgium as
“limited one-way streets” (sens unique limité/
SULs or beperkt eenrichtingsverkeer/BEV), are
indicated by (compulsory) road signs (Royal
and Ministerial Decrees of 18 December 2002)
and (optional) road markings.
Available road width
<2.6 m
2.6 m >3 m
≥3m
contra-flow
prohibited
contra-flow
authorised
contra-flow
mandatory
Figure 1 - Introduction of contra-flow cycling
depending on available road width according
to regulations (Sources: Royal and Ministerial
Decrees of 18 December 2002; IBSR 2004)
Figure 3 - C1 + M2 road signs at the exit from a
contra-flow.
Despite the advantages of contra-flows for
cyclists - shortest route, avoidance of busy
and/or dangerous main roads, eye contact
when passing oncoming traffic - some contraflows are sometimes still perceived as being
“dangerous”. It is therefore necessary to evaluate contra-flows in order to respond objectively to criticisms and comments.
Chapter 2 explains the methodology used. The
overall results of the study are presented in
Chapter 3, while the accident scenarios identi-
introduction
8
fied as a result of detailed analysis of the official accident reports are discussed in Chapter
4. A number of specific issues are discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 5.
1.3. Analysis of the literature
There are few published studies on accidents
involving cyclists travelling against the traffic on contra-flows. However, the progressive
introduction of contra-flows in several cities
provides us with initial feedback from neighbouring countries.
In Germany, cyclist contra-flows have been
allowed since 1997, and a few already existed
before then. At the end of the 1980s, the city of
Munster introduced a number of contra-flows.
A study by Planungsgemeinschaft Verkehr
(1992) showed that the number and severity
of cycling accidents on the roads concerned
remained almost unchanged. It also showed
that the introduction of contra-flows improved
traffic conditions for cyclists, which in turn led
to increased use of contra-flows by cyclists.
Over half of cyclists considered contra-flows
to be safe, while most had encountered critical
situations there. For their part, half of motorists believed that contra-flows were dangerous. The main problem cited by both cyclists
and motorists was the road width, while most
conflicts actually occur at intersections, as on
narrow streets road users tend to slow down
and adapt their behaviour. Narrow streets are
nonetheless more problematic when there is
more motorised traffic. The study concludes
that the accident risk is similar, or even lower,
when the cyclist travels against the traffic than
when he travels with the traffic. Better signage
of contra-flows, especially by means of road
markings, and more awareness-raising measures are desirable.
The study by Alrutz D. et al. (2002), conducted
in 15 German cities, showed that most accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the
traffic occurred with pedestrians who failed to
check whether a cyclist was coming in the contra-flow direction. Accidents between a cyclist
riding against the traffic and a motor vehicle
are rather rare and occur mainly at an intersection. The study concludes that the introduction
of contra-flows has no negative effects on road
safety, and that it is even positive as it enables
cyclists to get off busy main roads and use
quiet back streets instead.
These conclusions are confirmed by the study
conducted by Ryley T and Davies D (1998)
in London. Video sequences filmed on five
contra-flows showed that cyclists travelling
against the traffic were not in danger. Furthermore, no accident was recorded following the
introduction of contra-flow cycling (during
the study period). Most cyclists interviewed
felt safe but believed that better signage was
necessary.
In France, 215 km (134 miles) of two-way
cycling streets were opened during the summer of 2010 in 30 km/h (20 mph) zones in
Paris. A study conducted at seven sites by Paris
City Hall (2011) showed a sharp increase in
use of the roads concerned by cyclists. Despite
the increased number of cyclists, there was no
increase in the number of accidents. The study
also concluded that the introduction of contraflows is safe and that the much-feared head-on
collisions are extremely rare, but that there
is a conflict between contra-flow cyclists and
pedestrians crossing between parked vehicles.
Other studies conducted in France by CERTU
[Centre for Studies on Road Networks, Transport, Urban Planning and Public Facilities]
(Nuyttens, 2008) with the aim of evaluating
contra-flows show that few accidents involve
cyclists travelling against the traffic, and that
all accidents occur at intersections.
9
Finally, in Oslo, the Norwegian Centre for
Transport Research has studied the introduction of contra-flows on two roads. In one case,
video observations showed that the conversion
of a parking lane into a contra-flow cycling
lane led to a reduction in the number of conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians on the
pavement (sidewalk), to the satisfaction of
pedestrians.
introduction
Thus in neighbouring countries the introduction of contra-flows has not caused a rise in
cycling accidents on the roads in question and,
given the advantages, has a positive overall
effect on safety.
10
2 - Methodology
This study comprises two methodological
components: the first involves mapping the
contra-flows and identifying the exact location
of cycling accidents in the Brussels-Capital
Region; the second involves analysis of the
accidents that occurred on contra-flows or at
an intersection with a contra-flow.
2.1. The mapping step
This step is necessary in order to determine
which cycling accidents occurred on a contraflow or at an intersection with a contra-flow, as
this information is not mentioned in the accident database provided by the Ministry of Economic Affairs (SPF Économie/FOD Economie),
Directorate-General of Statistics and Economic
Information (see explanations below).
2.1.1. Mapping the contra-flows
Mapping of the contra-flows is based on
the “UrbAdm_sa” layer of Urbis 20111. We
first identified the road network accessible
to cyclists by eliminating motorways, tunnels
and certain bridges. This network comprises
12,424 sections of roadway and has a total
length of 1,654.2 km (1,027.9 miles).
The mapping of one-way streets and one-way
streets with cyclist contra-flow is based on the
map of the Brussels-Capital Region for active
travel modes (cycling and walking), September
2011 edition. As this source has some errors,
it was checked against the One-Way Map application of the Brussels Regional Informatics
Centre (CIRB/CIRG) and Google Street View. As
these two sources are not entirely up to date,
there may be some inaccuracies in the mapping of one-way streets and one-way streets
with cyclist contra-flow.
2.1.2. Mapping of accidents
The cycling accidents were first identified
using the database of accidents involving
injury compiled each year by the Ministry of
Economic Affairs(SPF Économie/FOD Economie), Directorate-General of Statistics and Economic Information. These data, extracted from
the forms for the analysis of traffic accidents
with fatalities or injuries, are seriously underrecorded, especially with regard to slight injuries2.
In 2008, 2009 and 2010, 824 cycling accidents
involving injury were recorded in the BrusselsCapital Region. These three years were chosen
because contra-flows were rolled out across
the 19 municipalities making up the region in
2008. Of these 824 accidents, 433 took place
on a road section between intersections and
391 at an intersection.
These accidents were mapped using the ArcGIS
Online geolocation tool (in the absence, at this
point in the study, of a geolocation tool based
on the Urbis data). The location of most of the
accidents at an intersection was verified manually. For 13% of the accidents on a road section
no house number was given, which makes
it impossible to identify the precise location. These accidents were assumed to have
occurred in the middle of the road segment.
2.1.3. S
election of the accidents to
be analysed
The location of the accidents was identified
using the ArcGIS projection system (WGS 84
projection). The map of the accidents was then
imported into the Belgian Lambert 72 projection system, used for the URBIS data (which
1. T
he URBIS data are cartographic data generated by the Brussels Regional Informatics Centre (CIRB/CIBG). The “UrbAdm_sa” vector
layer contains the centre line of all roadways in the Brussels-Capital Region.
2. A
ccidents with injury, and especially those involving vulnerable road users, are by no means all identified in the list compiled on the
basis of the accident analysis forms:, the police are not called out to every accident with injury, especially where the cyclist is the only
person involved, and the police do not always fill in an accident analysis form in addition to the accident report.
11
methodology
had been used to map the contra-flows). Due
to this change of reference system, these
points may not be perfectly positioned on the
correct street segment of the URBIS network.
It was thus necessary to take account of this
imprecision when selecting the accidents. For
this, the selection of accidents located on a
contra-flow segment was extended to include
those located less than 10 metres from a
contra-flow segment (using the “select by
location” tool of ArcGIS). Nonetheless, some
accidents whose location is out by more than
10 m may not have been selected, while they
should have been. On the other hand, those
that were selected in error (because they were
less than 10 m from a contra-flow without having occurred there) were removed during the
analysis.
not available for consultation; 234 accidents
were therefore analysed.
Mapping the accidents involving cyclists from
2008 to 2010 shows that 222 accidents (out of
a total of 824) occurred on a contra-flow or at
an intersection with a contra-flow. A previous
study conducted in 2009 by the Belgian Road
Safety Institute (IBSR/BIVV) (Dupriez, 2009)
showed that 16 accidents (out of a total of 168)
took place on a contra-flow or at an intersection with a contra-flow in 2005, 2006 and 2007
in the municipalities of Etterbeek, Evere, SaintJosse-Ten-Noode/Sint-Joost-ten-Noode, Schaerbeek/Schaarbeek,
Woluwe-Saint-Lambert/
Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe and Woluwe-SaintPierre/Sint-Pieters-Woluwe. These accidents
were added to the analysis, as in these six
municipalities contra-flows were generalised
in 2005.
Each file was then studied using an analysis
chart that includes data on the locations, the
road users, the sequence of events in the accident (divided into four phases3) and several
factors judged to contribute to an accident (see
the analysis charts in the Annex). Field visits
were then made to determine the extent to
which the road layout could have played a role
in the accident. In the vast majority of cases,
the road layout had not changed between the
time of the accident and that of the analysis.
Where it had changed, it was still possible to
reconstruct the road layout at the time of the
accident relatively accurately, in particular
using aerial photographs.
The study thus deals with 238 accidents that
occurred on a contra-flow or at an intersection
with a contra-flow. Four of the case files were
2.2. Analysis of the accidents
The accidents were reconstructed on the
basis of the official accident reports. The
files were consulted in the police precincts of
Brussels-Ixelles/Brussel-Elsene, Brussels-Midi/
Brussel-Zuid, Polbruno, and Uccle-AuderghemWatermael-Boitsfort/Ukkel-Oudergem-Watermaal-Bosvoorde and at the Brussels Police
Prosecutor’s office. The official report numbers,
not included in the database provided by the
Ministry of Economic Affairs, were provided by
the Police Operational Information Directorate
of the Federal Police.
Following the analysis, cases considered similar were grouped together on the basis of the
sequence of events in the accident to obtain
several accident profiles.
3. N
amely, the driving situation, the accident situation, the emergency situation and the collision situation. This sequential analysis of the
accidents follows that proposed by INRETS (French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research) (Brenac et al., 2003).
fiche n o
1
12
3 - Initial observations
3.1. Distribution and use
of contra-flows
3.1.1. O
ne in four streets in the
Brussels-Capital Region is a
contra-flow
Network accessible to cyclists
Two-way
One-way with contra-flow
One-way
Kilometers
Figure 4 - One-way streets in the Brussels-Capital Region (2009).
13
initial observations
street without contra-flow cycling, making a
total of 88.9 km.
Mapping the one-way streets shows that there
are 3,116 sections of one-way street with
cyclist contra-flow out of a total of 12,424 road
sections accessible to cyclists in the BrusselsCapital Region, or 25% of the roads. The total
length of contra-flows is 404.1 linear km, or
24% of the 1,654 km of roadways accessible
to cyclists. There are 722 sections of one-way
Total number
of road sections
Number of
contra-flow sections
Percentage of
contra-flow
sections in this
category (%)
Total number
of intersections 4
Number of intersections with
at least one
contra-flow
Percentage of
intersections
with at least
one contra-flow
in this category
(%)
The breakdown of contra-flows by hierarchical
level of road, as defined in the Iris 2 regional
mobility plan 2015-2020 (see Figure 7), is as
follows:
Local network
8463
2829
33,4
4073
2057
50,5
Local collector
road
1298
190
14,6
1052
590
56,1
Primary collector road
1703
78
4,6
1475
645
43,7
938
16
1,7
896
305
34
124025
3113
25,1
7496
3597
48
Hierarchy
Primary network
Total
Figure 5 - Road hierarchy as defined in the Iris 2 plan
Almost 91% of contra-flows are on the local
network, 6% on local collector roads, 2.5% on
primary collector roads, and 0.5% on the primary network.
At 48% of all intersections in the region, at
least one of the roads is a contra-flow; 50.5%
of intersections on the local network include at
least one contra-flow, compared with 56% on
local collector roads, 44% on primary collector
roads, and 34% on the primary network.
Thus contra-flows constitute a major part of
the Brussels cycling network and contribute
to a high permeability of cyclists throughout
the city.
3.1.2. O
ver 4 in 10 cyclists on
contra-flows travel against
the traffic
The recent series of cyclist counts organised by
Provelo, “Cyclists count”6, provided some information on the use of contra-flows by cyclists.
Of the 212 cyclist counts conducted on the
local road network (106 different sites), 87
of them on contra-flows (43 different sites),
the average number of cyclists counted was
greater on contra-flows than on two-way or
one-way streets: approximately 10 cyclists per
site (observed over 20 minutes) compared with
approximately 8 on the other roads.
4. Intersections were categorised according to the highest hierarchical level of road present. We took into account only those accessible to
cyclists.
5. The hierarchical level of the road is not specified for all segments on the map file provided by Brussels Mobility.
6. T
hese data come from 381 individual 20-minute counts, carried out during the rush hour by cyclist counters at locations chosen by
them during a specified one-week period. While these data have no scientific value, the large number of individual counts provides
orders of magnitude which are useful for the purposes of this analysis.
Campaign site: www.provelo.org/fr/rd/etudes/campagne-cyclistes-comptent
initial observations
14
These counts also show that 56% of cyclists
travelling on contra-flow sections of the local
road network are travelling with the traffic and
44% against it.
Although this data should be treated with caution, it is the only information available in such
detail, and provides at least orders of magnitude on use of the road network by cyclists.
3.2. General characteristics of accidents on
contra-flows
3.2.1. What proportion of accidents
occurred on a contra-flow?
992 accidents*
758
No contra-flow in the
vicinity
no
presence of a contra-flow?
yes
60
No user on
the contra-flow
no
presence of one of the 2
users on the contra-flow?
yes
48
no
Other vehicle
on the contra-flow
Cyclist on the contra-flow?
yes
79
no
Cyclist riding with
the traffic on
the contra-flow
Cyclist riding against
the traffic on the contrayes
47
Cyclist riding against
the traffic
on the contra-flow
Figure 6 - Breakdown of cycling accidents in the Brussels-Capital Region by type of road (with or without a
contra-flow) and by direction of travel of the cyclist
*8
24 accidents out of the 19 municipalities (years 2008 to 2010) + 168 accidents out of 6 municipalities (years 2005 to 2007) = 992
accidents.
15
Of the 992 cycling accidents analysed, 126, or
12.7%, involved a cyclist travelling on a contraflow, entering an intersection from a contra-flow, or crossing an intersection towards
a contra-flow. Accidents involving a cyclist
travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow
accounted for 47 cases out of 992, or 4.7% of
all accidents involving cyclists.
initial observations
In 48 accidents the other vehicle was on the
contra-flow section, and in 60 cases none of
the users involved was coming from or heading towards the contra-flow section.
A concentration of cycling accidents was
observed on the primary network and on the
central boulevards.
related to the contra-flow (n=115)
not related to the contra-flow (n=107)
not on a contra-flow
motorway/trunk/arterial road
primary collector road
local collector road
local access road
kilometers
Figure 7 - Cycling accidents in the Brussels-Capital Region in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and hierarchy of roadways.
initial observations
16
3.2.2. W
hat is the breakdown of
accidents involving a cyclist
on a contra-flow between
accidents at intersections and
accidents on road sections?
dents involving a cyclist, 47.8% occurred at an
intersection. Of the 126 accidents involving
a cyclist travelling on a contra-flow, entering
an intersection from a contra-flow or entering a contra-flow, a similar proportion (48.7%)
occurred at an intersection.
As can be seen in Figure 8, of the 992 acci-
Section n=514
Intersection n=478
on a section – not on
a contra-flow
416
450
on a section – on a
contra-flow - cyclist with
the traffic
31 31
48
at an intersection
without a contra-flow or
other vehicle on contraflow (n=48)
at an intersection with a
contra-flow- cyclist with
the traffic
16
on a section – on a
contra-flow - cyclist
against the traffic
at an intersection with a
contra-flow - cyclist
against the traffic
Figure 8 - Breakdown of cycling accidents in the Brussels-Capital Region between those at or not at an
intersection, those with or without a contra-flow in the vicinity, and the direction of travel of the cyclist.
Figure 9 shows that of the 47 accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the traffic, 31
(66%) occurred at an intersection. In the case of
cyclists travelling with the traffic, accidents at
intersections were, at 39.7%, below the overall
average. The danger is therefore greater when
the cyclist is travelling with the traffic on a
road section or against the traffic at an intersection.
Thus the risk of accident for a cyclist travelling
with the traffic must not be underestimated,
and where necessary measures must be taken
to reduce it. Intersections at the exit from a
contra-flow should also be laid out in such a
way as to reduce traffic speeds and increase
mutual visibility. Road users should also be
encouraged to take extra care when approaching an intersection with a contra-flow.
17
initial observations
100%
90%
ON A ROAD SECTION
80%
70%
512
16
48
60%
50%
average
40%
31
30%
20%
480
31
AT AN INTERSECTION
10%
0%
total
cyclist on a contraflow travelling with
the traffic
cyclist on a
contra-flow
against the traffic
Figure 9 - Comparison of the number of cycling accidents at an intersection and on a road section
3.2.3. Are contra-flows more
dangerous than the rest of
the road network?
On a road section
Nearly 91% of contra-flows are on the local
network. They should therefore be compared
primarily with this type of road. Contra-flows
account for 32.9% of the total length of the
local network, and had 30.5% of the accidents
that occurred on the local network.
The rest of the contra-flows are distributed as
follows: 6% on local collector roads, 2.5% on
primary collector roads, and 0.5% on the primary network.
When the number of accidents involving cyclists
on a road section is divided by the number of
kilometres of each category of road, the following results are obtained (see Figure 10):
On a road section, the level of danger for a
cyclist travelling on the local network is thus
5 to 6 times less per km travelled than on the
primary network, and 3 to 4 times less than on
a primary collector road. On the local network,
contra-flow road sections even appear to give
rise to fewer accidents per km of road than
other roads (two-way or “ordinary” one-way).
On the rest of the road network, the number of
cycling accidents on a section is too small to
be able to make the same distinction between
roads with and without contra-flows.
initial observations
25,0
18
24,8
20,0
15,6
15,0
13,8
10,0
average
5,0
4,4
3,9
0,0
Primary
Primary
collector
Local
collector
Local roadway Local roadway
not contra-flow
contra-flow
Figure 10 - Number of cycling accidents on a road section per 100 km of road (Brussels-Capital Region, 2008
to 2010, N=824).
At an intersection
The breakdown of accidents by hierarchical
level of intersection is as follows:
Primary
Primary collector
Local collector
Local
% of intersections
12
19,7
14
54,3
Of which, % of intersections
with at least one contra-flow
34
44
56
50,5
37,5
30,6
17,2
14,7
1,3
6,1
1,8
5,1
% of cycling accidents
Of which, cycling accidents
related to the contra-flow(%)
Figure 11 - Number of cycling accidents at an intersection by hierarchical level.
The proportion of cycling accidents occurring
at an intersection on the primary network
(37.5% of all accidents) is three times the proportion of intersections located on the primary
network (12% of all intersections). This table
also shows that the proportion of accidents
related to the contra-flow is greater at intersections on primary collectors. Intersections
on primary collectors and the primary network
with a contra-flow must therefore be carefully
designed.
initial observations
19
Road sections and intersections
Figure 12 shows that on the primary network,
primary collectors and local collectors there are
more cycling accidents at intersections than
on road sections. Conversely, on the local road
network, more accidents take place on a road
section.
It should be noted, however, that the Ministry of
the Brussels-Capital Region classifies intersections according to the highest hierarchical level
of road present. As a result the higher hierarchical levels are somewhat over-represented.
The risk per km of road can be found by dividing
the number of accidents that occurred on each
of the categories of the network (road section
+ intersection) by the linear distance of this category. Figure 13 shows that the risk of accident
per km of roadway is over 15 times greater on a
road section or intersection on the primary network than on a road section or intersection on the
local network. This means that improving safety
by redesigning 1 km of the primary network will
have a significantly greater effect on the road
safety of cyclists than redesigning 1 km of the
local network.
The accident rate on local collector roads is very
similar to that on primary collector roads, even
though local collector roads are supposed to
resemble local roads more closely than primary
collector roads (see the Regional Development
Plan).
not related to a contra-flow
related to a contra-flow - cyclist travelling with the traffic
160
related to a contra-flow - cyclist travelling against the traffic
140
Accidents not related to a contra-flow
120
Accidents related to a contra-flow and with cyclist
going with the traffic
100
Accidents related to a contra-flow and with cyclist
going against the traffic
80
60
40
Primary
156 km
Intersection
Road
Section
Intersection
Road
Section
Intersection
Road
Section
Road
Section
# accidents
0
Intersection
20
Primary
collector
Local
collector
Local
231 km
155 km
1108 km
Number of accidents per 100 km of road and per year
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
average
10
0
Figure 12 - Number of cycling accidents at an
intersection or on a road section by hierarchical level (Brussels-Capital Region, 2008-2010,
N=824).
Primary
Primary
collector
Local
collector
Local
156 km
231 km
155 km
1108 km
Figure 13 - Relative risk of a cycling accident
(road section or intersection) per 100 km of road
by hierarchical level (Brussels-Capital Region,
2008-2010, N=824).
initial observations
20
The average risk for a cyclist (the concept of
"risk exposure") can be calculated by dividing
the number of accidents per km of road by
the average number of cyclists who use that
type of road. The only data available on the
number of cyclists by hierarchical level of road
come from the "Cyclists count" data collected
by Provelo in 20127. These figures should be
treated with caution, but they nonetheless
reveal a general trend. The results obtained by
Provelo are as follows :
Hierarchical level of the road
Primary
network
Primary collector
Local collector
Local network
20
15
13
6
# cyclists on average/20 min.
Figure 14 : Number of cyclists by hierarchical level of roadways (Source: Provelo).
On the basis of the above cyclist counts, Figure 15 shows that the accident risk per km
travelled on the local road network is below
the average for the entire road network (=1),
while the accident risk on other road types is
above average.
The counts appear to show that there are more
cyclists on contra-flow sections than on other
sections of the local network. If these counts
are confirmed, they would tend to show that
the risk for a cyclist per km travelled is less on
a contra-flow section of the local network than
on other sections of the local network.
Accidents not related to a contra-flow
Accidents related to a contra-flow
2,5
Relative risk of accident per km travelled by bike
The accident risk for a cyclist per km travelled
is approximately 4 times greater on the primary network and twice as high on primary
collector or local collector roads as on the local
network.
2,0
1,5
Overall
1,0
average
0,5
0,0
Primary
156 km
Primary
collector
231 km
Local
collector
155 km
Local
1108 km
Figure 15 - Relative risk of accident per km
travelled by bike (Brussels-Capital Region, 20082010, N=824, Provelo cyclist counts).
7. www.provelo.org/fr/rd/etudes/campagne-cyclistes-comptent.
It is clear that the hierarchical level of the road
section or intersection is a more decisive risk
factor for bike accidents than the introduction
of contra-flow cycling on one-way streets. On
the local network, where most contra-flows are
found, the number of cycling accidents per km
is lower on contra-flows than on other roads.
21
3.2.4. A
re there more accidents
when cyclists travel against
the traffic?
initial observations
traffic than with the traffic, or even slightly
fewer.
The cyclist was travelling against the traffic in
47 of the 126 accidents on a contra-flow road
section, or 37% of cases, and with the traffic
in 55% of cases. In 8% of cases the cyclist was
either making a different manoeuvre (e.g. crossing the road) or the direction of travel was not
recorded.
3.2.5. A
re accidents involving
cyclists travelling against the
traffic on contra-flows serious?
These figures can be compared with the Provelo cyclist counts, which show that on average
44% of cyclists on a contra-flow are travelling
against the traffic and 56% with the traffic.
The 992 accidents involving a cyclist resulted in
1,042 deaths or injuries, including two deaths
and 52 serious injuries, or a severity rate8 of
5.2%. The 126 accidents involving a cyclist travelling on a contra-flow road section, entering an
intersection from a contra-flow or crossing an
intersection towards a contra-flow resulted in
137 injuries, including 10 serious injuries, and
no fatalities, or a severity rate of 7.3%.
Thus, proportionally there are no more accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the
The severity rates can be broken down by
direction of travel as follows:
# injuries
# serious injuries
Severity rate (%)
On a contra-flow - cyclist travelling
against the traffic
52
2
3,8
On a contra-flow - cyclist travelling
with the traffic
75
6
8,0
On a contra-flow – other manoeuvre or unknown9
10
2
20
Figure 16 - Severity of cycling accidents on contra-flows.
Thus in general the consequences of accidents
involving a cyclist are less serious when the
cyclist is travelling against the traffic than
when travelling with the traffic or making
another manoeuvre.
However, the rather low number of serious
injuries does not allow definitive conclusions
to be drawn, regardless of the direction of
travel of the cyclist.
3.2.6. Is the breakdown of cycling
accidents on contra-flows by
age and gender significant?
tion of men travelling by bike (approximately
69%, according to the Provelo cyclist counts
in 2008, 2009 and 2010). Proportionally more
male cyclists are also accident victims (76% of
the cyclists having an accident in 2008, 2009
and 2010 were male).
Male adolescents and men in the 60-69 age
range seem to be involved more often than the
average in an accident going against the traffic on a contra-flow. The low number of cases,
however, does not allow a formal conclusion
to be drawn.
78% of cyclists involved in accidents going
against the traffic on a contra-flow are male.
This is explained in part by the greater propor8. Severity rate = number of deaths and serious injuries divided by the total number of deaths and injuries.
9. In particular: crossing the road.
22
3.2.7. Is the breakdown of cycling
accidents on a contra-flow by
time significant?
Number of accidents involving cyclists going
against the traffic on a contra-flow
The time distribution of accidents involving
cyclists going against the traffic on contraflows follows the trend for all cycling accidents. There are more accidents overall during
the summer months, with a dip during the
school holiday period. The more marked variations are due to the low number of accidents
taken into account.
The distribution over the course of the day of
accidents involving cyclists going against the
traffic on contra-flows also follows the same
trend as all cycling accidents, namely peaks
during the morning, noon and evening rush
hours. Six accidents took place at night and
two at dawn/dusk. Two accidents occurred
in rainy weather. Thus 10 accidents out of 47
took place under conditions of reduced visibility.
120
20
18
100
16
14
80
12
10
60
8
40
6
4
20
2
0
0
Number of cycling accidents (2008, 2009, 2010)
o
fiche nobservations
initial
1
Accidents involving cyclists going against the traffic on a contra-flow
Cycling accidents (2008, 2009, 2010)
Figure 17 - Breakdown by month of accidents involving cyclists on a contra-flow going against the traffic and
of all cycling accidents (2008, 2009 and 2010).
23
4 - Accident profiles
Despite the low number of accidents involving cyclists travelling on, entering or leaving
a contra-flow road section, these accidents
have been analysed in order to understand the
sequence of events. The aim is to determine
whether the road layout could have contributed to their occurrence and, if so, to propose
recommendations for improved road layouts
with a view to further reducing the accident
risk.
4.1. Accidents at an intersection
In 31 accidents out of 110, the cyclist was
entering or leaving a contra-flow against the
traffic. Two thirds of the accidents involved a
road user travelling on a road intersecting that
taken by the cyclist, and only one fifth of the
accidents involved an oncoming vehicle turning into an intersecting road.
special
cases
4
Cyclist going wiht
the traffic
79
Cyclist going
against the
traffic
31
same road
6
intersecting
roads
21
Figure 18 - Number of cycling accidents at an intersection where at least one road user was coming from or
heading towards the contra-flow road section.
Typical accident 1: Failure to give way (yield) (on the part of one or
other of the two road users)
• In 14 cases, the two road users were travelling on intersecting roads and one of the two failed to
give way (yield) to the other. In 7 accidents the cyclist failed to give way to the other vehicle, 6
times at an intersection with priority for traffic coming from the right and once at an intersection
with a give-way sign (B1). The other road user failed to give way six times at an intersection with
priority for traffic coming from the right and once at an intersection with a give way sign (B1). At
the six intersections with priority for traffic coming from the right, the required road signs (B17
announcing an intersection with priority for traffic coming from the right + M9 announcing a cyclist contra-flow on the intersecting street) were not present. In addition, at one of these intersections, the priority-from-the-right rule should not have been applicable, as the contra-flow exited
onto a regional priority road. The signage has since been changed.
fiche n o
1
fiche n o 1profiles
accident
24
Figure 19 - Accident sketches (the vehicle is represented in red and the cyclist in green).
Recommendations
Figure 20 - Marking at the exit of contra-flows
at priority-to-the-right intersections (IBSR 2006).
• M
ark a bicycle symbol at the exit of contraflows to make drivers aware of the presence
of cyclists when cyclists have priority.
• L
ay out intersections so as to reduce traffic
speeds and increase mutual visibility.
• A
t intersections between a local road and
a more major road, install give way (yield)
signs (B1) for cyclists travelling against the
traffic (highly visible sign and road marking).
• Increase cyclists’ awareness of the rules of
priority and encourage them to take extra
care when approaching intersections, even
if they have right of way.
• Install the B17 sign (announcing an intersection with priority for traffic coming from the
right) + M9 sign (announcing a cyclist contra-flow on the intersecting street) where it
is legally required.
Figure 21 - Accident at the intersection of Rue du
Cornet/Hoornstraat and Avenue d’Auderghem/
Oudergemselaan. The give way (yield) sign is not
sufficiently visible to cyclists and there are no
give way road markings, even though the contraflow exits onto a very busy road.
25
accident
fiche
profiles
no 1
Typical accident 2: Poor road positioning of the road users
involved
• S
even accidents took place between road users travelling on intersecting roads when one of them
was poorly positioned at the approach to the intersection.
In 3 cases, the vehicle turning left cut the corner and collided with the arriving cyclist.
In 3 cases, the cyclist was travelling either in the centre or on the left side of the road at the
approach to the intersection. The vehicle could not avoid the cyclist when turning.
In one case, the cyclist was travelling on the left side of the road and collided head-on with the
vehicle when turning.
Figure 22 - Accident sketches (the vehicle is represented in red and the cyclist in green), independently of
the priority rules at the intersection.
Recommendations
•
• A
dd bicycle symbol road markings to make
drivers aware of the presence of cyclists and
to indicate to the cyclist where he should be
positioned.
• I
f necessary, provide channelising traffic
islands (either physical islands or painted
ghost islands) at the entrances and exits of
contra-flows in order to channel traffic flows.
They should be designed in such a way as
not to present a risk to motorcyclists.
• E
liminate parking at the approach to intersections to allow cyclists to position themselves more to the right, especially in the
case of downhill contra-flow sections. The
design of kerb build-outs (curb extensions)
at intersections needs to be adapted to take
account of the path followed by cyclists.
Figure 23 - Accident at the intersection of Rue
Gray/Graystraat and Rue du Serpentin/Spiraalbuisstraat: the bicycle symbol road markings
are not sufficient to encourage vehicles to keep
to the right.
fiche n o 1profiles
accident
26
Typical accident 3: Vehicle turning, cutting across the path of an
oncoming cyclist
• S
ix accidents involved a vehicle and a cyclist travelling on the same road, but in opposite directions. In 5 of these accidents, the vehicle turned left into a perpendicular road and cut across
the path of the oncoming cyclist. In one case, the cyclist was travelling against the traffic on the
service road and was struck by a vehicle turning right. In 4 accidents, the drivers stated that they
did not see the cyclist coming, although there was nothing to mask visibility and it was daytime
in 3 cases.
Recommendations
• A
t intersections with traffic lights (two cases), programme conflict-free phase changes.
• A
dd bicycle symbol road markings to make
drivers aware of the presence of cyclists.
• R
emind cyclists of the importance of making
themselves visible.
Figure 24 - Accident sketch (the vehicle is represented in red and the cyclist in green).
Figure 25 - Accident at the intersection of Chaussée de Gand/Gentse Steenweg and Rue de l’Ecole/
Schoolstraat: the vehicle turns left and collides
with the cyclist, who is going straight on. Red
surfacing could be applied to the cycle lane to
mark the point of conflict.
Figure 26 - Accident at the intersection of the
Avenue des Croix du Feu/Vuurkruisenlaan and
Avenue de l’Araucaria/Araucarialaan: the phasing of the traffic lights on the service road could
be different from those on the main road to prevent conflicts between road users who are turning and those who are going straight on.
• 4
special cases: A vehicle travelling in reverse collided with a cyclist who was entering the
contra-flow; a tram turned and a cyclist was unable to brake; a pedestrian was crossing at a
pedestrian crossing and a cyclist was unable to avoid him; a cyclist fell off his bike (no other
vehicle involved).
27
4.2. Accidents on a road
section
accident
fiche
profiles
no 1
these 16 accidents, over one third were related
to parked vehicles. Another third of the accidents involved a pedestrian crossing the street.
In 16 accidents out of 64, the cyclist was travelling against the traffic on the contra-flow. Of
special
cases
1
Cyclist going with
the traffic
48
Cyclist going
against
the traffic
16
related to vehicles
going with the
traffic
parking-related
6
4
pedestrian-related
5
Figure 27 : Number of cycling accidents on a contra-flow road section.
Typical accident 4: parked vehicles pulling out
• S
ix accidents involved vehicles that were pulling out either from a vehicular access located on
the left of the roadway10 (4 cases), or from a longitudinal parking bay located on the left of the
roadway (2 cases). In 4 accidents out of 6, other parked vehicles masked the view of the drivers.
Figure 28 - Accident sketch (the vehicle is represented in
red and the cyclist in green)
In half of the cases, there was a segregated cycle track,
a cycle lane, or a series of bicycle symbol road markings
at the scene of the accident. In every case except one,
masked visibility prevented the driver from seeing the
cyclist arriving against the traffic.
10. Directions are always indicated by reference to the general traffic direction.
fiche n o 1profiles
accident
28
Recommendations
• A
s far as possible, avoid masked visibility
on either side of major vehicular accesses.
• A
dd a cycle track or cycle lane, or at least
appropriate road markings, at the exit from
major vehicular accesses.
• R
emind drivers of the obligation to use directional indicator lights when leaving a
parking space.
• R
aise awareness among cyclists of the need
to keep a safe distance from parked vehicles, especially when they conceal a vehicular access.
Figure 29 - Accident on Avenue Ducpétiaux/
Ducpétiauxlaan at the exit from the petrol station. The bottle banks prevent drivers pulling out
from the petrol station from seeing approaching
cyclists, but the coloured cycle lane draws their
attention.
Typical accident 5: pedestrian crossing
• In 5 cases, the accident occurred with pedestrians who were crossing the road during the daytime
under normal weather conditions. Four of these pedestrians were coming from the cyclist’s right;
one was coming from the left and had already crossed part of the road. In all cases, the pedestrian
was crossing between parked vehicles, which masked the view of both road users. In 4 of the 5
cases, there were no road markings to draw attention to the presence of cyclists travelling against
the traffic. One of the pedestrians was seriously injured.
Recommandations
• W
here there are long unbroken longitudinal
parking lanes, create suggested pedestrian
crossing points with good mutual visibility
in the form of a kerb build-out (curb extension) at least 5 metres long, with a dropped
kerb, but not necessarily with pedestrian
crossing (crosswalk) markings. The pedestrian is invited to cross at this safer location.
• M
ake pedestrians aware of the presence of
cyclists travelling in both directions.
Figure 30 - Accident sketch (the pedestrian is
represented in blue and the cyclist in green).
By comparison, only 3 accidents out of 64
involved a cyclist travelling with the traffic and
a pedestrian crossing the road.
• M
ake cyclists aware of the fact that they are
silent and that pedestrians, relying on hearing
when crossing, do not hear them coming.
29
accident
fiche
profiles
no 1
Typical accident 6: oncoming vehicle
• F
our accidents involved oncoming vehicles. The narrowness of the road was clearly a factor in two
of the accidents, aggravated by difficult weather conditions (snow) in one case. In another case,
an illegally parked vehicle masked visibility.
Recommendations
• E
nsure that very busy contra-flows, with
heavy flows of either cyclists or motor vehicles, are sufficiently wide to allow road users to pass each other comfortably (cf. point
5, Discussion).
Figure 31 - Accident sketch (the vehicle is represented in red and the cyclist in green).
Figure 32 : Accident on Rue de la Tulipe/Tulipstraat: it is not easy for a cyclist and a vehicle
to pass on this contra-flow. N.B.: the two parking
lanes reduce the available road width to less
than 4 m, which hinders access for emergency
services.
• P
hysically prevent illegal parking, which reduces the width of the roadway and gives
rise to avoidance manoeuvres. If deliveries
take place frequently, provide sufficiently
wide parking bays reserved for deliveries.
• R
aise awareness among cyclists of the need
to take extra care when there is snow or
black ice.
Figure 33 : Accident on Rue Traversière/Dwarsstraat: illegal parking obliges drivers to drive
on the cycle lane (Source: maps.google.be).
• S
pecial case: One accident took place with a vehicle parked in the wrong direction (against the
flow of the traffic), the driver of which opened the door and struck a cyclist travelling against the
traffic.
fiche n o
1
5 - Points for
discussion
30
5.1. Does specific cycling infrastructure ensure safety?
At an intersection
segregated cycle track
1
compulsory cycle lane
no specific
infrastructure
6
advisory cycle
lane
11
2
bicycle symbols at
intersection only
11
Figure 34 - Type of cycling infrastructure present when an accident at an intersection involves a cyclist
travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow.
presence of cycling infrastructure is not always
enough to make motorists aware of the presence of cyclists riding against the traffic, but it
is difficult to draw more detailed conclusions
without being able to compare the accident
sites with a representative sample of intersections with contra-flows.
In two thirds of the accidents at an intersection
specific cycling infrastructure was present:
either bicycle symbol road markings at the
intersection only, or an advisory or compulsory cycle lane or a segregated cycle track all
along the road section on which the cyclist
was travelling. It would therefore seem that the
On a road section
segregated cycle track
compulsory cycle lane
1
no specific
infrastructure
3
advisory
cycle lane
9
3
Figure 35 - Type of cycling infrastructure at the time of an accident on a road section involving a cyclist
travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow.
31
In over half of accidents on a road section,
there was no specific cycling infrastructure at
the accident site.
There were too few accidents where specific
cycling infrastructure was present to draw conclusions on whether or not they are necessary.
points for discussion
fiche n o 1
5.2. What are the possible types of conflict
on a contra-flow?
Some people cite the surprise at seeing a
cyclist riding against the traffic as a reason
for considering contra-flows to be dangerous.
This situation occurs on a road section when
the cyclist and the motorist are travelling in
opposite directions, and at an intersection
when either the vehicle or the cyclist enters the
contra-flow section.
There were four accidents on a road section in
which the cyclist and the motorist were travelling in opposite directions, eight accidents at
the entrance (for motor traffic) to a contra-flow
section, and one at the exit (for motor traffic) from a contra-flow section. Thus, counting accidents on a road section and those at
an intersection, only 13 accidents out of 47
involved a cyclist riding against the traffic on a
contra-flow coming face to face with a vehicle.
Some motorists find this surprising, as they
consider this situation to be inherently unsafe.
Despite the surprise effect this situation can
cause, it leads to few accidents. However,
conflicts can and do occur. They are more or
less problematic depending on the distances
between the road users, the type of road users,
and the frequency with which they meet.
Figure 36 - Situations in which a cyclist and a
motorist come face to face.
32
Passive interaction: no
need to slow down
Sufficient distance/room
for manoeuvre between
road users
Active interaction: need to
slow down in order to pass
or manoeuvre
Barely sufficient distance/
room for manoeuvre
between road users
Minor to major conflict:
need to stop when passing
or turning at an intersection
Distances between road
users are too small.
Major conflict: need to stop
when passing or turning at
an intersection, and one of
the two road users must
pull off the roadway.
Distances between road
users are too small.
No need for the cyclist or the
vehicle to slow down compared
to a situation without interaction
Wide vehicles
only
Neither problematic nor
awkward
Uncommon
situation
Neither problematic nor
awkward
Common situation
Not problematic but awkward
Uncommon
situation
Neither problematic nor
awkward
Common situation
Not problematic but awkward
Uncommon
situation
(Slightly) problematic and
(slightly) awkward
Common situation
(Highly) problematic and
awkward
Uncommon
situation
(Slightly) problematic and
awkward
Common situation
(Highly) problematic and
very awkward
Uncommon
situation
(Slightly) problematic and
awkward for the cyclist
Common situation
(Highly) problematic and
very awkward for the cyclist
Uncommon
situation
Problematic and awkward
for the cyclist
Common situation
Highly problematic and very
awkward for the cyclist
All vehicles
Wide vehicles
only
All vehicles
Wide vehicles
only
All vehicles
Figure 37 - Possible conflicts11 between vehicles and cyclists travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow
11. Conflict = "A serious incompatibility between two or more … interests" (Oxford Dictionaries online), in this case right of way!
SPECIAL CARE TO BE GIVEN TO ROAD LAYOUT, ESPECIALLY AT THE APPROACH TO AN INTERSECTION
o
fiche n for
points
1 discussion
points for discussion
fiche n o 1
33
The conflicts arising on contra-flows should be
studied so that they can be resolved. Is it not
possible to reduce speeds, eliminate parking,
or consider better sharing of the public space
(e.g. home zones)?
5.3. Are narrow contraflows more hazardous?
segments was taken at random. The position
of parking (on the left, on the right, on both
sides) and the available road width (width
between kerbs minus 2 m per parking lane)
were then taken into account for each segment. The widths of contra-flows where an
accident had occurred were also measured
(where available).
To answer this question, the width of contraflows between kerbs was measured using
the 2012 URBIS data12. A sample of 100 road
≤ 3 m
Staggered
Staggered
Staggered
Parking
Parking
on Parking
Parking
on Parking
Staggered
Staggered
Parking
Parking
Parking
on
onononParking
Parking
on
Parking
onononParking
Parking
on
Parking
Parking
onononon
No parking
NoNo
parking
No
parking
No
parking
parking
parking
parking
parkingthe left
the
the
leftleftthe right
the
right
parking
parking
thethe
left
left
thethe
right
the
right
right
bothboth
sides
both
both
sides
both
sides
sides
sides
0 segment
1 segment
2 segment
1 segment
16 segment
20
1 segment
2 segment
0 segment
20 segment
23
12 segment
10 segment
1 segment
9 segment
34
5 segment
5 segment
0 segment
12 segment
23
3
19
19
2
57
3,1 à 3,5 m
0 segment
Average
3,6 à 4,5 m
2 segment
Wide
> 4,5 m
Narrow
1 segment
100
Figure 38 - Number of contra-flow road segments broken down by width and position of parking.
Figure 38 shows that the available road width in
43% of contra-flows is less than 3.5 m13 (and in
almost half of these it is less than 3 m). As most
contra-flows are local access streets, narrower
available road widths are also acceptable.
Tables showing the number of cycling accidents broken down by road width and position
of parking are available in the annex.
12. W
here the width between kerbs varied too much along a road segment, it was not possible to calculate it automatically. It is therefore
not available for all road segments.
13. This value corresponds to the minimum available road width on a transit roadway with parking on one side (IBSR, 2006).
o
fiche n for
points
1 discussion
34
Very narrow
<3m
Wide
> 4,5 m
Average
3,51- 4,5 m
Narrow
3 - 3,5 m
Sample of road
segments
Number of accidents - cyclist
against the traffic (n = 36)
7
4
12
Number of accidents - cyclist
with the traffic (n = 58)
0%
13
9
13
14
20%
40%
23
60%
80%
100%
Figure 39 - Breakdown of cycling accidents on a contra-flow by road width
in the vicinity of intersections to allow the
cyclist to keep right as he approaches the
intersection. The design of kerb build-outs
(curb extensions) should therefore take account of the path followed by cyclists, while
avoiding any adverse impact on the safety
and mobility of pedestrians.
Figure 39 shows that there are proportionally
more accidents on contra-flows with a width
greater than 4.5 m, especially when the cyclist
is travelling with the traffic.
Only one third of accidents involving cyclists
going against the traffic occurred on a contraflow with an available road width of less than
3.5 m.
The figures used are too low for valid conclusions to be drawn, but it would seem that
narrow roads are not more problematic than
wider roads.
We can nevertheless make the following comment: travelling against the traffic on a narrow
contra-flow, a cyclist who leaves a buffer zone
between himself and vehicles parked on his
right can easily find himself in the centre of the
road. If this positioning is not corrected when
he reaches an intersection, he runs a greater
risk, especially with regard to vehicles turning
and not realising that there is a cyclist in the
middle of the road. This risk is increased if the
road slopes downhill and the cyclist is travelling at high speed.
Recommendations
• M
ark the correct positioning of the cyclist at
the approach to an intersection with chevrons and bicycle symbols.
• Eliminate parking on the left of the road
• A
void having an available road width of less
than 3.5 m on roads with very dense cyclist
or motor vehicle traffic. If necessary, eliminate a parking lane.
•
Figure 40 - Rue Jacques de Lalaing/Jacques de
Lalaingstraat: parking has been prohibited for
a distance of 14 metres at the approach to the
intersection. This allows cyclists to position themselves better when approaching the intersection
and to have good visibility of the traffic coming
from the intersecting road.
points for discussion
fiche n o 1
35
5.4. Does the positioning of parking on the right or the
left have an impact on cyclist safety?
Staggered
parking
No parking
Parking on
the left
Parking on
the right
Parking on
both sides
Road segment sample
Number of accidents - cyclist
against the traffic (n = 36)
11
5
6
5 13
Number of accidents - cyclist
with the traffic (n = 58)
0%
24
7
20%
42
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 41 - Breakdown of cycling accidents on a contra-flow by position of parking.
Figure 41 shows that most accidents on contraflows take place where there is parking on
both sides. This configuration is also the most
common among contra-flow road segments. It
also shows that there are as many contra-flow
segments with parking on the left as with parking on the right. There are proportionally fewer
accidents when parking is on the left and the
cyclist is travelling with the traffic. For other
configurations, the figures used are too low to
allow valid conclusions to be drawn.
Our analysis identified two accidents, out of a
total of 16 accidents on a road section involving a cyclist riding against the traffic, where
the vehicle was pulling out from a parking
space (in both cases situated on the left of the
road relative to the general traffic direction).
There were no accidents involving the door of
a parked vehicle opening.
By comparison, 10 accidents, out of a total
of 48 accidents on a road section involving a
cyclist travelling with the traffic, were directly
related to vehicle parking: 8 involved the unexpected opening of the door of a vehicle parked
on the right, and two involved a vehicle entering a parking space (situated on the right of
the road).
Thus there are more accidents involving a
parked vehicle (manoeuvre or door opening)
when the cyclist is going with the traffic.
As a reminder, the last series of cyclist counts
showed that slightly more than half of the
cyclists observed on contra-flows were travelling with the traffic.
Given the small number of accidents analysed,
it is not possible to reach a decisive conclusion.
o
fiche n for
points
1 discussion
36
Parking is also a contributing factor to accidents, in particular where it masks visibility
between a cyclist and a driver leaving a vehicular access, or between a cyclist and a pedestrian crossing between two parked vehicles.
On the basis of the accidents analysed, parking on the left seems to present slightly less
risk for cyclists, but it encourages cyclists
riding against the traffic to veer towards the
centre of the road and so expose themselves to
more danger when approaching intersections.
Moreover, it increases the risk of an accident
involving a pedestrian crossing between two
vehicles without being aware of cyclists travelling against the traffic. Five accidents occurred
between a pedestrian crossing between parked
vehicles and a cyclist riding against the traffic.
By comparison, there were only three accidents
of this type with a cyclist going with the traffic.
As for vehicles leaving a vehicular access and
being masked by parked vehicles, there were
four accidents of this type involving a cyclist
going against the traffic and one involving a
cyclist going with the traffic.
Recommendations
Where there is parking on one side only, parking on the left relative to the general traffic
direction seems to involve slightly less risk
for cyclists. However, this recommendation is
based on a small number of cycling accidents.
It would be useful to extend the analysis with
camera observations of the behaviour and
interactions of the various road users depending on the side on which vehicles are parked.
Figure 42 and 43 - Narrow contra-flow and parking on the left. The cyclist tends to keep away from the
doors of the parked cars.
37
5.5. Can profiles of the
most dangerous road
types be identified?
1. W
hen all vehicles are obliged to turn,
coming into conflict with the cyclist
points for discussion
fiche n o 1
For example, intersections where all the
branches are contra-flows, and only one of
them is an exit from the intersection, would
seem to be a more dangerous configuration.
All vehicles coming from the contra-flow sections are obliged to take the exit contra-flow
section. If there is heavy traffic on these roads,
the approach to the intersection can be awkward for cyclists.
Figure 44 - Vehicles (in red) all turning towards the cyclist (in green).
Recommendations:
• D
esign intersections properly so as to reduce speeds and increase mutual visibility.
• If visibility between road users is poor and/
or where the road is sufficiently wide, install channelising islands to separate traffic
flows and avoid points of conflict.
• In other cases, mark bicycle symbols on the
road to make drivers aware of the presence
of cyclists and to indicate to cyclists where
they should position themselves.
Figure 45 - Channelising island (the white marking should be accentuated to increase its visibility).
o
fiche n for
points
1 discussion
38
2. When the SUL has a curved profile
The presence of a curve in a SUL is often cited
as a reason for concern about accidents, given
that visibility can be poor there and motorists
tend to cut curves. However, the accident analysis does not allow us to conclude that there
are more accidents on a SUL with a curved
profile. Nevertheless, certain measures can be
taken to reduce the risk of accidents.
3. When the contra-flow is on a bend
The presence of a bend on a contra-flow is
often cited as a reason for concern about accidents, given that visibility can be poor and
motorists tend to cut corners. However, the
accident analysis does not lead to the conclusion that there are more accidents on a contraflow with a bend. Nevertheless, measures can
be taken to reduce the risk of accidents.
First of all, speeds must be moderated. If
necessary, the maximum authorised speed
should be reduced. In general, this should be
accompanied by infrastructure measures to
limit speed.
Motorists must also be made aware of the possible presence of cyclists travelling against the
traffic, for example by marking an advisory
cycling lane with additional road markings at
the bend(s) where visibility is poor. If there is
enough room, contra-flow cyclists can even
be physically segregated from cars in some
places by constructing a raised cycle track with
a vertical kerb or a reflective vibrating strip, a
median strip or even, if speeds are sufficiently
low, small posts.
Where necessary and possible, visibility can
be improved by removing obstacles such as
bushes, parking lanes, bus shelters, etc. (IBSR,
2004).
Figures 46 and 47 - Rue de l’Armistice: bicycle logos are closely spaced on the curve and a mirror has been
installed allowing mutual visibility of cyclists and motorists.
Joint bus and cycle contra-flows
This analysis does not cover accidents on joint
bus and cycle contra-flows, as we considered
the configuration of such streets to be different from that of cyclist contra-flows. The problems and solutions are not the same.
We nevertheless note that five accidents
involved a cyclist travelling against the traffic on a joint bus and cycle contra-flow. Three
of these accidents involved a vehicle travelling in the general direction of traffic that cut
across the path of the cyclist while turning
left. Another accident involved a pedestrian
crossing at a pedestrian crossing. In the fifth
accident, no other road user was involved. All
the accidents occurred while the cyclist was
travelling downhill, but the speed of the cyclist
is never mentioned in the accident reports.
39
6 - Conclusions
Cyclist contra-flows account for a quarter of
the road network in the Brussels-Capital Region
and are mainly located on local access roads.
Accidents involving a cyclist going against the
traffic on a contra-flow, or entering or leaving
a contra-flow at an intersection, account for
less than 5% of all cycling accidents. This is
not therefore a major safety issue.
Analysis of 992 accidents did not reveal an
increased risk of accident on a contra-flow
compared to another road of the same category. It even seems that the number of
accidents per km of local access road is lower
on contra-flows than on the rest of the local
network. Moreover, the proportion of accidents involving a cyclist travelling against the
traffic on a contra-flow is fairly close to, or
slightly less, than the proportion of cyclists
travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow.
Studies conducted abroad confirm that the
introduction of contra-flow cycling has not
caused a rise in cyclist accidents on the roads
concerned, and given the advantages, has a
positive overall effect on safety.
Moreover, when the cyclist was travelling
against the traffic, the percentage of accident
victims who were seriously injured was half
that when the cyclist was travelling with the
traffic or making another manoeuvre.
Of the cycling accidents related to a contraflow, accidents on a road section are overrepresented when the cyclist was travelling with
the traffic, while accidents at an intersection
were overrepresented when the cyclist was
travelling against the traffic.
In general, the hierarchical level of the road
or intersection is a more decisive factor in the
risk of a cycling accident than the introduction
of contra-flow cycling on one-way streets.
The main types of accidents involving a cyclist
travelling against the traffic on a contra-flow
are:
• failure to give way (yield) (by one or other
of the two road users) at an intersection: 14
accidents
• p
oor positioning of the road users involved
at an intersection: 7 accidents
• v
ehicle turning at an intersection, cutting
across the path of an oncoming cyclist: 6
accidents
• v
ehicle leaving a parking space on a road
section: 6 accidents
• p
edestrian crossing a road section: 5 accidents
• o
ncoming vehicle on a road section: 4 accidents.
Studies conducted abroad confirm that most
accidents with a cyclist travelling against the
traffic take place at an intersection. Accidents
on a road section generally involve a vehicle
leaving a vehicular access or a pedestrian
crossing without checking whether a cyclist is
coming in the opposite direction.
The narrowness of roads does not appear to
be a major factor; narrow roads are obviously
awkward, but the number of accidents involving cyclists travelling against the traffic on
narrow roads is lower than the proportion of
the road network which they form. The risk
to cyclists appears to be less where parking is
situated on the left (the main traffic flow being
on the right) than where parking is situated on
the right. Parking on the left greatly reduces
the risk of accidents involving drivers opening car doors without looking, but it involves
two main risks for contra-flow cyclists: it
encourages the cyclist to veer towards the
centre of the road, which is a riskier position
to be in when approaching intersections, and
it can mask visibility for pedestrians crossing
between two vehicles without paying atten-
fiche n o
1
fiche n o 1
conclusions
40
tion to contra-flow cyclists. A follow-up study
would be useful to confirm this analysis with a
larger sample of observations.
There are a number of ways of reducing the
already low risk of accident for cyclists travelling on, entering or leaving a contra-flow. In
conclusion
particular, intersections should be properly
designed to reduce speeds and increase mutual visibility, and road users should be encouraged to take greater care when approaching an
intersection with a contra-flow.
41
7 - Annexes
Analysis chart for accidents on a road section
Road section form
Municipality
Accident report no.
Date
Street and house no.
Type of day
Time
Weather conditions
Light level
Highway authority
Status of the road
Regional cycle route
Parking
Cyclist
Cycling infrastructure
Age of cyclist
Other user
Sex
Position
Manoeuvre
Direction of travel
Road user(s) at fault
Severity of accident
Type of injury
Technical status + lighting
Alcohol
Wearing helmet/safety
jacket
Speed
Saw the cyclist?
Description
Factors
fiche n o
1
fiche n o
annexes
1
42
Analysis chart for accidents at an intersection
Intersection form
Accident report No.
Date
Time
Type of day
Light level
Weather cond.
Status of the road
Municipality
Road cyclist coming
from
Highway authority
Parking
Cycling infrastructure
Road cyclist going to
Highway authority
Parking
Cycling infrastructure
Road car coming from
Highway authority
Type intersection
Cyclist
Who had right of
way?
Type of intersection
Other road user
Date of birth
Sex
Position
Manoeuvre
Direction
Error
Severity
Type of injury
Technical status + lighting
Alcohol
Wearing helmet/safety
jacket
Speed
Saw the cyclist?
Description
Factors
fiche
annexes
no 1
43
Number of accidents involving cyclists riding against the traffic on a contra-flow broken down by
road width and position of parking.
≤ 3 m
0 accident
3,1 à 3,5 m
0 accident
Average
3,6 à 4,5 m
0 accident
Wide
> 4,5 m
Staggered
Staggered
Staggered
Parking
Parking
on Parking
Parking
on Parking
Staggered
Staggered
Parking
Parking
Parking
on
onononParking
Parking
on
Parking
onononParking
Parking
on
Parking
Parking
onononon
No parking
NoNo
parking
No
parking
No
parking
parking
parking
parking
parkingthe left
the
the
leftleftthe right
the
right
parking
parking
thethe
left
left
thethe
right
the
right
right
bothboth
sides
both
both
sides
both
sides
sides
sides
1 accident
0 accident
1 accident
1 accident
5 accident
7 accidents
0 accident
0 accident
0 accident
4 accident
4 accidents
2 accident
2 accident
0 accident
9 accident
13 accidents
4 accident
2 accident
0 accident
6 accident
13 accidents
1 accident
6 accident
51 accident
1 accident
24 accident
36 accidents
Narrow
Number of accidents involving cyclists riding with the traffic on a contra-flow, broken down by road
width and position of parking.
≤ 3 m
1 accident
3,1 à 3,5 m
0 accident
Average
3,6 à 4,5 m
1 accident
Wide
> 4,5 m
Staggered
Staggered
Staggered
Parking
Parking
on Parking
Parking
on Parking
Staggered
Staggered
Parking
Parking
Parking
on
onononParking
Parking
on
Parking
onononParking
Parking
on
Parking
Parking
onononon
No parking
NoNo
parking
No
parking
No
parking
parking
parking
parking
parkingthe left
the
the
leftleftthe right
the
right
parking
parking
thethe
left
left
thethe
right
the
right
right
bothboth
sides
both
both
sides
both
sides
sides
sides
3 accident
Narrow
0 accident
1 accident
0 accident
10 accident
12 accidents
2 accident
0 accident
0 accident
7 accident
9 accidents
3 accident
1 accident
0 accident
9 accident
14 accidents
2 accident
1 accident
1 accident
16 accident
23 accidents
5 accident
7 accident
3 accident
1 accident
42 accident
58 accidents
fiche n o
1
44
8 - References
Introduction
• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], SULs, sens uniques
limités [contra-flow cycling]. February 2004, available at: http://webshop.ibsr.be/fr/produit/
detail/sul-sens-uniques-limits-pour-une-introduction-gnralise-en-toute-scurit-des-sens-uniqueslimits-ref-022
Belgisch Instituut voor Verkeersveiligheid, BEV, beperkt eenrichtingsverkeer. Februari 2004,
beschikbaar op: http://webshop.bivv.be/nl/product/detail/bev-beperkt-eenrichtingsverkeervoor-een-veilige-veralgemeende-invoering-van-het-beperkt-eenrichtingsverkeer-ref-022
Methodology
• B
RENAC T., NACHTERGAËLE C., REIGNER H., Scénarios types d'accidents impliquant des piétons
et éléments pour leur prévention [Typical accident scenarios involving pedestrians and factors
in preventing them], INRETS report no. 256, December 2003.
• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], Accidents de cyclistes
en contexte urbain [Cycling accidents in urban areas]. January 2006, available at: http://
webshop.ibsr.be/fr/produit/detail/accidents-de-cyclistes-en-contexte-urbain-ref-025
Belgisch Instituut voor de Verkeersveiligheid, Fietsongevallen in stedelijke omgeving. Januari
2006, beschikbaar op: http://webshop.bivv.be/nl/product/detail/fietsongevallen-in-stedelijkeomgeving-ref-025
• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], Accidents de piétons
sur passages pour piétons non réglés par feux [Pedestrian accidents at non-signal-controlled
pedestrian crossings]. August 2009, available at: http://webshop.ibsr.be/fr/produit/detail/
accidents-de-pitons-sur-passages-pour-pitons-non-rgl-par-feux-ref-045
Belgisch Instituut voor de Verkeersveiligheid, Ongevallen met voetgangers op een
nietlichtengeregelde voetgangersoversteekplaats. Augustus 2009, beschikbaar op http://
webshop.bivv.be/nl/product/detail/ongevallen-met-voetgangers-op-een-niet-lichtengeregeldevoetgangersoversteekplaats-ref-045
Review of the literature
German studies
• B
ureau Planungsgemeinschaft Verkehr, 'Radfahren in unechten Einbahnstrassen' (Cycling
on one-way streets with contra-flow bicycle traffic)(published by the City of Munster in
the framework of the ‘Cycle-friendly Cities’ study programme of the state of North RhineWestphalia, August 1992), available at: http://epflicht.ulb.uni-muenster.de/content/
titleinfo/53514 and http://veloquirit39000.fubicy.org/documentation/Etude%20%E0%20
Munster%20accidents%20Sens%20Uniques%20Limit%E9s%20=%20DSC.pdf
• ALRUTZ D., ANGENEDT W., DRAEGER W. GUNDEL D., Traffic safety on one-way streets with
contraflow bicycle traffic. Strassenverkehrstechnik, 6/2002, available at: http://bikexprt.com/
research/contraflow/gegengerichtet.htm
Belgian study
• V
ANDENBULCKE G., THOMAS I., INT PANIS L., Predicting cycling accident risk in Brussels: A
spatial case-control approach, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2013. Available at: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513002686
45
• V
ANDEWINCKEL, Evaluatie van de maatregel BEV naar verkeersveiligheid toe [Evaluation of
contra-flow cycling with regard to traffic safety], Verkeersdienst [Traffic Service] Kortrijk,
1998.
British study
• R
YLEY T. and DAVIES D., Further developments in the design of contra-flow cycling schemes,
1998.
French studies
• M
airie de Paris [City Hall of Paris]. Bilan de la mise en place des double sens cyclables à Paris
[Assessment of the establishment of cyclist contra-flows in Paris]. October 2011.
• CERTU [Centre for Studies on Road Networks, Transport, Urban Planning and Public Facilities],
Evaluations des double-sens cyclables [Evaluations of cyclist contra-flows]. Presentation of
Nicolas Nuyttens at the technical workshop launching the “slow traffic zones” decree of 9
September 2008, available at: http://www.certu.fr/fr/_S%C3%A9curit%C3%A9_et_circulation_
routi%C3%A8res-n28/V%C3%A9los-n117/IMG/pdf/9sept08-evaluations_des_double-sens_
cyclables-2.pdf and at: http://veloquirit39000.fubicy.org/documentation/Accidentologie%20
en%20double%20sens%20cyclables.pdf
Norwegian study
• S
tudy of the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research, summary available at: http://www.
fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=nl&section=nieuws&mode=newsArticle&repository=Oslo:+fietsen
+in+tegenrichting+geeft+weinig+problemen
Initial observations
• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], Contraflow cycling in
Belgium and the Brussels Region. Presentation by Benoît Dupriez at Velocity 2009, available
at: http://www.velo-city2009.com/assets/files/paper-Dupriez-sub1.4.pdf
Recommendations and discussion
• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], SULs, sens uniques
limité [Cyclist contra-flows]. February 2004, available at: http://webshop.ibsr.be/fr/produit/
detail/sul-sens-uniques-limits-pour-une-introduction-gnralise-en-toute-scurit-des-sens-uniqueslimits-ref-022
Belgisch Instituut voor de Verkeersveiligheid, BEV, beperkt eenrichtingsverkeer. Februari 2004,
beschikbaar op: http://webshop.bivv.be/nl/product/detail/bev-beperkt-eenrichtingsverkeervoor-een-veilige-veralgemeende-invoering-van-het-beperkt-eenrichtingsverkeer-ref-022
• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière [Belgian Road Safety Institute], Marquage et
signalisation dans les contresens cyclables [Marking and signage on cycling contraflow
streets]. Vademecum vélo en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale [Cycling Guidebook for the BrusselsCapital Region]. September 2006, available at: http://webshop.ibsr.be/fr/produit/detail/
marquage-et-signalisation-dans-les-contresens-cyclables-vademecum-vlo-en-rgion-de-bruxellescapitale-ref-030
Belgisch Instituut voor de Verkeersveiligheid, Markering en signalisatie van beperkt
eenrichtingsverkeer. Fietsvademecum Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest. September 2006,
beschikbaar op: http://webshop.bivv.be/nl/product/detail/markering-en-signalisatie-vanbeperkt-eenrichtingsverkeer-fietsvademecum-brussels-hoofdstedelijk-gewest-ref-030
references
fiche n o 1
fiche n o
1
46
research and analysis
Chaussée de Haecht/Haachtsesteenweg 1405 – B-1130 Bruxelles/Brussel
Tél. : 02/244.15.11 – Fax : 02/216.43.42
E-mail : info@ibsr.be - info@bivv.be
www.ibsr.be - www.bivv.be
Direction Stratégie - Directie Beleid
CCN - rue du Progrès/ Vooruitgangstraat 80 bte 1 - B-1035 Bruxelles/Brussel
Tél. : 02/204.20.07 - Fax : 02/204.15.10
E-mail : bruxellesmobilite@sprb.irisnet.be - brusselmobiliteit@gob.irisnet.be
www.bruxellesmobilite.irisnet.be - brusselmobiliteit.irisnet.be
Cyclist contra-flows encourage more people to travel by bicycle,
as they allow cyclists to use safe routes and avoid unnecessary
detours. Several years after their generalisation in the BrusselsCapital Region, it was appropriate to assess their impact
on cyclist safety. Although the number of accidents involving
cyclists on contra-flows is rather low, Brussels Mobility asked
the Belgian Road Safety Institute (IBSR/BIVV) to quantify the
accident risk and analyse the accidents in order to identify and
understand their circumstances. This publication also makes
recommendations on road layouts and awareness-raising with a
view to reducing the accident risk.