Mekuria et al.1 classified the
four levels of traffic stress based on the four types of cyclists outlined by
Geller2. Mekuria et al. developed a framework for determining
geometric needs for each of the cyclist types on segments, but no such work
exists at intersections. Most research regarding bicyclists at intersections
has focused on technological or pavement marking implements to improve
bicyclist safety3,4,5. Current efforts are underway to address the
safety of bicycles at intersections6, but this effort, along with
existing guidance documents7,8, does not consider the differences in
needs among the four cyclist types. Current efforts also exist to understand
bicyclist facility preferences by cyclist type, but the scope with regards to
intersections is limited to traffic control. Further, the resulting guidance
will focus on planning level decisions9.
1Mekuria, Mazza C.,
Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon. "Low-stress bicycling and network
2Geller, Roger. Four Types of Cyclists. Portland, OR:
City of Portland Office of Transportation, undated, circa 2007,
(accessed August 5, 2016).
3Paulsen, Kirk, et al.
"Analysis of Active Warning Sign to Address Potential Bicycle 'Right-Hook'
Conflict at Signalized Intersections." Transportation
Research Board 95th Annual Meeting. No. 16-4330. 2016.
"Performance Implications of Bicycle Specific Treatments at Signalized
"Building Better Communities Through Complete Streets-The Protected
of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal86.3 (2016): 40.
6NCHRP 15-63: Guidance
to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Intersections. Research in
7Bowling, R. G., et al.
Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets, NCHRP Report 616. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC (2008).
8Highway Capacity Manual
2010. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council. Washington, DC (2009).
9NCHRP 08-102: Bicyclist
Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Research in