Bicycle safety at roundabouts: a systematic literature review

ABSTRACT

As roundabouts become increasingly popular, and as many communities promote bicycle use, the safety of roundabouts for people bicycling is of major concern. Although converting an intersection to a roundabout may reduce crashes overall, some research from northern Europe suggests that roundabouts may actually increase the frequency of bicycle crashes. We perform a systematic literature review on this topic, reviewing 49 different resources with empirical findings (most from Europe, some from Australia/New Zealand, few from the US). Many studies analyse (limited) bicycle crash data or observe driver/cyclist behaviours and interactions, while a few survey cyclists’ safety perceptions. Consistent with design guidance, bicycle safety performance is worse for higher-speed, multilane roundabouts and when on-roadway bike lanes are provided. Crash data and observations suggest that when cyclists “take the lane” and operate as vehicles – as is allowed or even recommended in some current design guidelines – this leads to conflicts and crashes between circulating cyclists and entering drivers who may have “looked but failed to see” (and thus failed to yield to) the cyclist. Providing separated cycle paths around the roundabout seems to be a lower-risk and more comfortable design solution, although care must be taken to encourage appropriate yielding at crossings. Future research should investigate more design features, socio-demographic characteristics, cyclist safety perceptions, and impacts outside of Europe. Studies should continue to explore ways to overcome limited bicycle crash and exposure data and to utilise naturalistic methods, driving simulators, and stated choice experiments.

KEYWORDS:

• Bicycling
• roundabouts
• safety
• design
• behaviour

Acknowledgement

This work was conducted with support from Utah State University and the Mountain-Plains Consortium, a University Transportation Center funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The comments from several anonymous reviewers significantly improved this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was conducted with support from Utah State University and the Mountain-Plains Consortium, a University Transportation Center funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation.