Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety
October 2004

FHWA-HRT-04-103

View Table of Contents
View PDF Version (1.33 MB)

Federal Highway Administration
Research and Development
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101

FOREWORD

Throughout the United States, there has been a dramatic increase in the varieties and numbers of nonmotorized users on trail and roadway facilities. Kick scooters, inline skates, hand cycles, recumbent bicycles, and other emerging users are now commonly seen sharing space with bicycles and pedestrians on roadways and shared use paths. Urban trail operators are reporting operational and safety problems associated with the increasing number of emerging users and their operational needs. User groups are petitioning State legislatures and local governments to legally operate their nonmotorized vehicles on roadways. The guidelines provided in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities are based on the physical dimensions and operating characteristics of bicycles only and may not meet the needs of emerging trail users. To address these issues, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored this study to better understand the physical dimensions and operational characteristics of an increasingly diverse group of nonmotorized trail and roadway users.

The results of this study can be used to help design professionals adequately design roadway and shared use path facilities to meet the operational and safety needs of a more diverse group of users.

Michael Trentacoste
Director, Office of Safety
Research and Development

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document.

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and process to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Organization of this Report
Safety/Crash Data Availability
Field Data Collection
Discussion
Sweep Width
Three-Point Turns
Design Speed
Horizontal Alignment
Stopping Sight Distance
Vertical Alignment-Crest Vertical Curves
Refuge Islands
Signal Clearance Intervals
Pedestrian Clearance Intervals
Minimum Green Times
Characteristics of Segway Users
Recommendations
Marketing Plan

INTRODUCTION

DEFINITIONS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROAD AND TRAIL USERS

Inline Skates
Skating Skill and Performance
Skateboards
Kick Scooters
    Nonmotorized Kick Scooters
    Motorized Kick Scooters
Baby Strollers
Conventional Strollers
Jogging Strollers
Electric Bicycles
Tandem Bicycles
Recumbent Bicycles
Recumbent Tricycles
Tandem Recumbent Bicycles
Bicycle Trailers
Trailers with Two Wheels
Trailers with Single Wheel
Trailer Bicycles
Segway Human Transporter
Manual Wheelchairs
Power Wheelchairs
Assistive Powered Scooters
Adult Tricycles
Hand Cycles (Stand-Alone)
Hand Cycle Wheelchair Attachment
Racing Wheelchairs
    Road Racing Wheelchairs
    Off-Road Racing Wheelchairs
Other Road and Shared Use Path Users with Disabilities
    Individuals with Partial or Total Vision Loss
    Individuals with Hearing Impairments or Deafness
Individuals with Cognitive Limitations
Other Road and Shared Use Path Users

SAFETY/CRASH DATA AVAILABILITY

NEISS Data
Other Hospital-Based Sources of Data
State Motor Vehicle Crash Data
State Narrative Crash Data
Summary

FIELD DATA COLLECTION PLAN

Station 1-Physical Characteristics
Station 2-Three-Point Turn
Station 3-Turning Radii
Station 4-Acceleration
Station 5-Lateral Operating Space (Sweep Width)
Station 6-peed
Station 7-Stopping Sight Distance (Deceleration)

REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Study Limitations
Eye Height
Length
Width
Acceleration
Speed
Stopping Distance
Sweep Width
Three-Point Turn
Turning Radius

DISCUSSION

Bike Lane Width
Path Width
Design Speed
Horizontal Alignment
Sight Distance
Stopping Sight Distance
Vertical Alignment-Crest Vertical Curves
Horizontal Alignment
Refuge Islands
Signal Clearance Intervals
Pedestrian Clearance Intervals
Minimum Green Times
Segway Human Transporter

RECOMMENDATIONS

MARKETING PLAN

Design of Shared Use Paths, Street Intersections, and Midblock Crossings

APPENDIX

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. An inline skater
Figure 2. Nonmotorized kick scooters
Figure 3. Jogging stroller for two
Figure 4. Tandem bicycle
Figure 5. Recumbent bicycle
Figure 6. A Segway user
Figure 7. Manual wheelchair
Figure 8. Another manual wheelchair
Figure 9. Power wheelchair
Figure 10. Assistive powered scooter
Figure 11. Hand cycle
Figure 12. Another hand cycle
Figure 13. Racing wheelchairs
Figure 14. Off-road racing wheelchair
Figure 15 Another off-road racing wheelchair
Figure 16. Pinellas Trail, St. Petersburg, FL
Figure 17. Paint Branch Trail, College Park, MD
Figure 18. San Lorenzo River Trail, Santa Cruz, CA
Figure 19. Typical layout of data collection stations (San Lorenzo River Trail)
Figure 20. Trail users consisted of both active and in situ participants
Figure 21. Trail user intercept signage
Figure 22. Video cameras were setup to record participant movements at Stations 3 through 7
Figure 23. Equipment testing at data collection stations
Figure 24. Temporary pavement markings were tested
Figure 25. Registration desk
Figure 26. Physical measurements
Figure 27. Three-point turn
Figure 28. Participant within turning radii station
Figure 29. Turning radius layout (not to scale)
Figure 30. The participants were briefed at the turning radius station
Figure 31. Research staff oversaw the turning radius station to ensure proper participant flow-through
Figure 32. A participant traveling through the largest radius path
Figure 33. Participants traveling through progressively smaller turning radii
Figure 34. Participants accelerated along a 60-m (200-ft) section of the course
Figure 35. Participants were asked to accelerate to their normal speed
Figure 36. A skateboarder starting to accelerate
Figure 37. Sweep width station
Figure 38. Sweep width and speed
Figure 39. Speed (and sweep width) station
Figure 40. Stopping sight distance
Figure 41. Several video cameras were positioned at strategic points around the braking area
Figure 42. STOP sign controller signaling a bicyclist to stop
Figure 43. The study reveals important information on various users now common on shared use paths
Figure 44. Thirty-two hand cyclists were active participants in this study
Figure 45. Two tandem riders negotiating a curve at the turning radius station
Figure 46. Trail users have diverse operating characteristics
Figure 47. AASHTO's design bicyclist travels at 30 km/h (20 mi/h)
Figure 48. The longest users observed in this study exceeded 2.4 m (8 ft) in length and should be considered the critical users
Figure 49. A hand cyclist
Figure 50. Segway users at the physical measurements station
Figure 51. A Segway user on the Paint Branch Trail in Maryland
Figure 52. Segway in the turning radius station
Figure 53. Many users of various ages and abilities participated in each "Ride for Science"
Figure 54. Two "Ride for Science" participants
Figure 55. Many volunteers assisted with the "Ride for Science" events
Figure 56. Many volunteers participated in the "Ride for Science" events

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Characteristics of Segway users vs. AASHTO (bicycle) values
Table 2. Design criteria and potential design users
Table 3. User types that can be identified in State motor vehicle crash files
Table 4. Summary of advantages and disadvantages to the data sources reviewed
Table 5. Active and in situ participants at each event
Table 6. Gender distribution and ages of active participants
Table 7. Eye height
Table 8. Length
Table 9. Width
Table 10. 85^th percentile acceleration rates (m/sec²)
Table 11. 85^th percentile elapsed time (sec)
Table 12. Speed
Table 13. Speed-active vs. in situ participants
Table 14. Perception-reaction time
Table 15. Braking distance and friction factor
Table 16. Deceleration rate
Table 17. Sweep width (lateral operating space)
Table 18. Three-point turn widths
Table 19. Friction factors for different radii, based on 85^th percentile speeds
Table 20. Minimum length of crest vertical curve
Table 21. 85^th percentile clearance intervals (sec)
Table 22. Physical dimensions and operational characteristics of Segway users vs. AASHTO (bicycle) values
Table 23. Design criteria and potential design users
Table 24. Marketing plan

Table of Contents | Next

FHWA-HRT-04-103

HRDS-06/10-04(1M)E

TFHRC Home | FHWA Home | Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration