USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An un-cataloged item [C01-00449] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An un-cataloged item C01-00449 from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications USF.
Physical Description:
Book

Subjects

Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - C01-00449
usfldc handle - c1.449
System ID:
SFS0032470:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary vii Pedestrian Collision Reports viii Bicycle Collision Reports viii Pedestrian Trip Generation Estimates and Trip Characteristics ix Bicycles Per Household and Bicycle Trip Generation Estimates ix Perceptions of Trip Makers lx Collision Exposure ix Introduction 1 Background 1 Methods 3 Survey Limitations 4 Profile of Survey Participants 6 Age and Gender 6 Household Size 7 Resi dence 7 Driver's Licerise and Oisabilily 7 Employment Status 7 Household Income 6 Children and Young Adults in Household 8 BicyCles Per Household 9 Motor Vehicles Per Househol d 10 Survey Respondent Profile 10 Collision Reports 11 Collision Reporting 11 Pedestrian Collisions 12 BicyCle Collisions 18 Trip Generatlo" Estimates and Trip Characteristics 23 Trip Rates 23 Role of Trip Length !24 Trip Generation and Correlates 24 Profile of Pedestrian Trips 32 Exposure from Incidental Pedestrian Trips 32 Profile of Bicycle Trips 33 iii

PAGE 2

Perceptions of Trip Makers Awa reness and Knowledge Conditions that Produce Perceptions of Danger Trend Analysis Demographics of Interviewed Respondents Travel of In terv iewed Respondents Crashes Reported by Interviewed Respondents CoUision Exposure Appendix A: Technical Documentation of Methods Appendix B: 2002 Questionnaire Appendix C: Map of Study Area lv 35 35 35 37 37 37 39 40 42 46 67

PAGE 3

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1: Bicycle and Pedesklan InjuriesFlorida 1996-2001 2 Figure 2: Bicycle a nd Pedestrian Crash Fatalities-Florida, 19962001 2 Tab l e 1: ShOrt and Long Survey Dislri b ution by Metropolitan Area 6 Tab l e 2: Age Distribution by Gender 7 Tab l a 3: 2002 and 1999 Househol d Size 7 Tab le4: 2002 and 1999 Employment Status 8 Tab l e 5: Income Distributio n by Metropolitan Areas 8 Tab l e 6: Childre n Under 161n HousehOid-2002 and 1999 8 T able 7: Young Adults Age 1 6 to 20 in Househ old 2002 and 1998 9 T able 8 : Bicycles per Household-2002 and 1998 9 T a ble 9: Bicycles per Person2002 and 1998 9 Table 10: Motor Vehicles per Household-2002 and 1998 10 Table 11: Collision Reporting2002 1' Table 1 2 : Dl.otribution of L ong Interviews-2002 and 1998 11 Table 13 : Report of Pedestrian Clashes Se lected for Long Interview2002 an d 19 98 12 Figure 3: Reporting Perspeclive for Pede strian 2002 and 1998 12 Figu17 4: Pedestrian Crashes Reported to Police -2002 and 1998 13 Figure 5: Age of Pedestr i an Invo l ved in Ctashas200 2 and 1998 13 Figure 6: Age o f Driver Involved In Pedestrian C rashes2002 1 4 Ta bla 14: Occurrence of Pedestrian Clashes-2002 and 1998 15 Table 15: Type of lntersecli on and P resence of Pedestrian Signal s 2002 and 1998 15 Tab l e 16: Crosswalk Availab ility and Use by Pedestrian2002 and 1999 16 T abl e 1 7 : Pedestrian Crash Conditions-2002 and 1998 1 6 Table 18 : Fautt A ttrib u t ed to Pedes trian2002 and 1998 16 Table 19 : Pre-Ctash Conditions2002 and 1998 17 Ta bla 20: Mo t or Vehi c l e Activity Surrou nd ing Pedestrian Crash.:. 2002 and 1 998 17 Table 21: Aloohol Use by Driver or Pedestr i an 2 002 and 1g98 17 T a b l e 22: Report of Bicycle Crashes Se lected fo r Long I nterview-2002 and 1 998 18 Figure 7: Reporting Perspective for Bicycle Crashes2002 and 1998 18 Figure 8: Bicyc l e C rashes Reporte d to Polioe-2002 and 1998 1 9 Figure 9: Age of B i cyclist Involved in Crashes-2002 and 1998 19 Figure 10: Age of Dr iver I nvolved in Bicyc le Clashes -2002 20 Tabl a 23: Occurrence of Bicycle Clash es-2002 and 1999 21 T a b le 24: T ype of I ntersection and Location of Bicycle C rash 2002 and 1998 2 1 Table 25: Motor Vehlcle Activity Surrounding Bicycle Cr ash2002 and 1998 21 v

PAGE 4

Table 26: Bicyclist Activ ity Surrounding Crash-2002 and 1998 22 Table 27: F aull Attributed to Bicyclist-2002 and 1998 22 Table 28: Alcohol Usage in Bicycle Crashes -2002 and 1998 22 T able 29: BJcycle and Pedes trian Dail y Trtp Rates 23 T ab l e 30: Bicycle and Pedestrian Trips -2002 23 T ab l e 31: Bicycle and Pedestrian DaityTri p Rates By Metropolitan Area -2002 24 Tab la 32: T ri p Purpose and Trip Length2002 24 Table 33: F r equency of Pedes trian Trips 2002 25 Table 34 : Daily Pedes trian T rip Rates by Age -2002 and 1998 25 Table 35: Daily Pedestrian Trip Rates by Gender2002 and 1998 25 T able 36: Physical Disabi l ity and Pedestrtan Tr i p Rates 2002 and 1998 26 Table 37: Drive(s License Status and Pedestrian Tr i p Rates2 002 and 1998 26 Table 38: Dalty Pedestri an Trip Rates by Househol d Size-2002 and 1 998 26 Table 39: Dai l y Pedes trian Tr i p Rates by Employment Status2002 an d 1998 27 Table 40: Daily Pedes trian. Tr i p Rates by Household Income2 002 and 1 998 27 Tab l e 41: Daily Pedestrian Tr ip Rates by Motor Vehicle Ownership2002 and 1 998 28 T ab l e 42: Frequency of Bicycle Tri ps 2002 28 Tabl e 43: Ty picality of Recent Bicycle Trips-2002 28 T a ble 44: Dalty Bicycle Trip Rates by N)o200 2 and 1998 29 Table 45: Dall y Bicycle Trip biGendor -2002and 1998 29 Table 46: Physic al D i sability and BJcycte T ri p Rates 2002 and 1998 29 Tab l e 47: Drive(s license Slaws and B icycle Tri p Rates 2002 and 1 998 30 Tab l e 48: Dally B icycle T rip Rates by Household Size-2002 and 1998 30 Tab le 49: D a ity Bicycle Trip Rat es by Employment Status-2002 and 1998 31 Table 50: Daily Bicycl e Trip Rates b y Household I ncome-2002 and 1998 31 Table 51: Daily Bicycle Trip Rates by Mot o r Vehicle Ownership -2002 and 1998 31 Tab l e 52: Dally Bicyc l e Trip Rates by Bicycle Ownershi p -2002 and 1998 32 Table 53: Distribution of Surveys Completed by MSA2002 43 Table 5 4 : Sample Distribution and Response Rate 45 Figure 11: Map o f SI.\Jdy A r ea 68 y j

PAGE 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Florida has consistenUy ranked as one of the worst s t ates in terms of pedestrian and bicycle crashes, Injuries, and fa tali ties. Over the past 10 years, trends show a slight decline in the pedestrian fata lity rate in Florida while the number of bicyclists killed over the same period has rema ined fairly constant. Although the reasons for these trends are not clear, one possible exp l anation may be related to how much people are walking and bicycling. I n 1998, the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) conducted a survey to determine the degree to which people were walking and bicyc li n g i n F lo rida 1 The survey generated descriptive Information on motor vehicle crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians2 as well as Information to estimate bicycle and pedestrian travel and exposure to collisions (crashes l in Florida. The FOOT Safety Office contracted with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South F l orida to conduct a similar survey to better understand the high levels of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, injuries and fatalities involving motor vehicles that occur in F lo rida, relative to othe r states, and the circumstances surrounding these phenomena. CUTR subcontracted w i th NuStats, Inc, of Austin, Texas, to conduct the survey, process and ana l yze the data, and prepare a report on the findings. In May June 2002, NuS tats, Inc, conducted telephone interviews with 963 Flo rida residents residing in the Tampa : Orlando, Miami, and Jacksonvill e met rop o litan areas to gather data about bicycle and pedes t r ian t ravel and collision involvement from randomly selected adults, aged 18 years and older. The p r i mary survey objectives were to compare chan g es in wal king and bicycling since 1998 to determine if trip frequencies and trip lengths are increasing or decreasing, and determ ine if exposure to crashes is increasing or decr easing and to what degree. To tha t exten t, the survey instrument and methods were i dentica l to the1998 survey. To accomplish the survey objectives, respondents were asked about crash i nvo l vement, patterns of travel activity by pedestrian or bicyc l e modes, perceptions about safety and knowledge r egarding pedestrian and bicyc l e t ravel, and demographic characteristics of the respondent and househo ld The interviews In the four surveyed metropolitan areas genera t ed data from 174 respondents reporting on 183 collision events (nine responde{lts reported one b icycl e and p e d e str ian crash each the other 165 respondents had one crash each). Trip generation esti mates and trip charac ter istics were calculated for the four metropolitan areas and ana l yzed by demographic and socioeconomic factors. Exposure was determined based on bicycle and pedestrian trip rates and leng t hs; incidenta l pedestrian travel habits; 'F l o rida Depar1ment o f Transportation, Office o f Pol icy Planning, Bicyr;/e and Pedestrian Travel: Exploration of Collision Exposure in Florida, NuStats lntemational, Austin, Texas, December 1998. 2Respond e nts were asked, "Have you ever been personally involved in a collision o r crash involving someone o n a b icycle or. a pedestrian? This includes your being the pedestrian, the the driver, or a passenger in the vehicle Involved in the collision. Thus, the survey data includes only pedestrian and b icy cle crash data involving motor vehicles. "'collision and crash" are used Interchangeably throughout the report. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-VII

PAGE 6

and perceptions about safety and knowledge of laws regarding bicycle and pedestrian travel. The survey also provided data to examine trends and make comparisons to the 1998 survey results The following highlights key survey findings. PEDESTRIAN COLLISION REPORTS --------.::-,.,-". ... >" -- ; -:} : . ; : ; i. , qiJ\h ; : :c State traffic crash data generated from police crash reports are typically used to collect informat ion about b icyc le and pedestrian crashes. Often, crash reports are not completed, resulting In the loss of important information about crash causes and the nature of injuries received in pedestrian crashes.' The 2002 survey data show that the number of pedestrian crashes reported to law enforcement agencies by respondents increased by 15 percentage points, from 69% in 1998 to 84% In 2002 According to the 1998 survey resu lts adults between the ages of 21 and 49 years accounted for nearly half {47%) of the pedestrians involved in crashes The same age group accounted for only 13% of the pedestrians involved in crashes in 2002 {a decrease of 34 percentage points). The decrease was countered by an increase of 11 percentage points in the pedestrian crash Involvement of the 16 to 20 year age group ( fro m 15% In 1998 to 26% in 2002) and 12 percentage points in the 65 and older age group {from 4% in 1998 to 16% In 2002) BICYCLE COLLISION REPORTS The 2002 data indicate that nearly two-thirds (64%) of the respondents reported the bicycle crash to the police. This is a slight Increase from over half (54%) of the respondent-reported bicycle crashes in 1998 and a possible explanation may be associated with an Increase in crashes involving alcohol. According to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles {DHSMV), there were 24,411 alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in 2001, resulting in 20,001 injuries and 1,000 fataiities.6 The 2002 survey data indicate that 18% of the motorists involved in the bicycle crashes were reported ly under the innuence of alcohol. Because alcohol was involved, this may have prompted those in volved to notify law enforcement when, under similar circumstances not invo lv ing alcohol, l aw enforcement may not have been summoned. Interesting l y, the percentage of bicyclists Involved in bicycle crashes and reported ly under the influence of alcohol also increased from 2% in 1998 to 6% in 2002. 4 Injury to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis Based on Hospital Emergency Department Data, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2000 Florida Crash Facts Florida Department of Highway saf ety and Motor Vehicles: 2001 VIII-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 7

PEDESTRIAN TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES AND TRIP CHARACTERISTICS The pedestrian trip rate of surveyed Florida resid e nts increased from 0.91 trips per person per day in 1998 to 1.08 trips per person per day in 2002, an inc rease of 18.7%. Th e 2002 mean pedestrian trip distance is 1.1.7 miles. BICYCLES PER HOUSEHOLD AND BICYCLE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES The mean number of bicycles per household inc reased from 1.28 in 1998 to 1 36 in 2002, while the mean numbe r of bicycles per person has increased from 0.45 in 1998 to 0.50 In 2002. Bicycle trip rates have also increased from 0.12 mean trips per person per day In 1998 to 0.17 mean trips per perso n per day in-2002 On average, adults between the age of 21 and 49 years are the most active at 0.25 mean trips per person per day. Interestingly, Florida residents are not only taking more trips, but the length of their trips is increasing. Based on the survey results the average bicycle trip len gth in 1998 was slightly over 4 miles. In 2002, the average bicycle trip length increase d to 4.53 miles. PERCEPTIONS OF TRIP MAKERS Florida residents appear to have a solid understanding of the "basic rules of the road." Nearly nine out often respondents (89%) knew that the statement "ifs legal to ride a bicycle while intoxicated" was false. Most of thos e surveyed knew that bicyclists on the road must stop at stop signs or signals (98%) and that motorists are required to yield the ri ght o f way to pedestrians at crosswalks (94%). Ninety-two percent of respondents reported that they were not nervous .._vhen making their most recent pedestrian trip, while 87% of the respondents reported that they were not nervous when making their most recent bicycle trip. Respondents that did feel unsafe commented that their feelings could be attributed to spee ding or inattentive motorists. Others cited issues regarding infrastructure, such as heavy traffic, poor lig hting at night, and the absence of bicycle paths or sidewalks. COLLISION EXPOSURE Several estimates presented in this report suggest that exposure to crashes may be in creasing for bicyclists and pedestrians In Florida. Perhaps the most convincing of these 'comparative value for 19981s not available. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTR IAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IX

PAGE 8

estimates concern trip rates, as both bicycle and pedestrian trip rates and trip lengths have in creased over the past four years. The bicycle trip rate increased by 29% from 1998 to 2002, while the pedestrian trip rate incre ased by 16%. The average bicycle trip length Increased to 4.53 miles in 2002, up from slightly over 4 miles in 1998. Survey results suggest that collision exposure for pedestrians in motorized vehiCle environments Is Increasing From 1998 to 2002, more people indicated crossing intersections with and without lig hts, walking on roads wi t hout s idewalks, and crossing the street in t he middle of a block. Incidental exposure will likely continue to increase based on the general trends indicating that people are traveling more across all modes. The data suggest that pedestrian and bicycle safety In general may be Improving. The number of bicycle injuries has steadily declined since 1998 and the number of bicycle fatalities has remained fairly constant over the same period. These results suggest that there may be other factors that have kept bicycle injury and fatalities from r isin g due to inc reased exposure such as bicycle safety efforts. In contrast, the increased collision exposure for pedestrians may p artly explain why pedestrian Injuries have been on the increase since 1999. While pedestrian fatalities have increased slightly since 1999, they are still not as high as fatalities were in 1996-1998, suggesting that safety may be improving for pedestrians as well. XEXECUTIVE 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 9

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND In 2000, in the United States, 4,739 pedestrians were kiiJed as a result of injuries resulting from (notor vehicle-related pedestrian crashes. While the number of deaths has decreased significantly (down 4% since 1999), pedestrian deaths still account for 11% of all motor vehicle deaths.' A total of 687 bicyclists were killed nationw ide in crashes with automobiles in 2000 While not occurring as freque nt [y as pedestrian deaths, these 687 deaths accounted for 2% of all motor vehicle deaths.8 Florida has consistently ranked as one of the worst states in terms of pedestrian and bicycle fatality rates. According to Figure 1, the numbers of bicyclists injured in motor vehicle crashes have declined by 30% since 1996, from 6,412 in 1996 to 4,476 in 2001. Although overall pedestrian injuries have declined slightly f rom 8,019 in 1992 to 7,894 in 2001, the figure shows an upward trend in in juries since 1999. As shown In Figure 2, the number of pedestrian fatalities h as declined slightly since 1996, while bicycle fa tality trends remain fairly constant. In 1998, the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) funded a survey of bicyclists and pedestrians to gather descriptive Informat i on on crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians as well as Info rmation to estimate bicycle arid pedestrian travel and exposure to coliisions10 in Florida. The survey was unique in that a general population survey was used to gather information about trip gene ration, crashes, and opinions and perceptions regard ing safety in pedestr i an and bicycle travel. The FOOT Safety Office contracted with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida to conduct a similar survey in 2002 to better understand the high l evels of bicycle and pedestrian-related crashes, in juries and f atalities that occur in Florida, relative to other states, and the circumstances surrounding thes e phenomena. CUTR subcontracted with NuStats, Inc, of Austin, Texas, toconduct the survey, process and analyze the data and prepare a report on the findings. The primary survey objectives were to compare changes in walking and bicycling since 1998 to determine If trip frequencies and trip lengths are increasing or decreasing, and determin e If exposure to crashes Is Increasing or decreasing and to what degree. To that extent, the survey instrument and methods were identical to the1998 survey. 7 Fatalffy Facts, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety : 2001 8Fatarl!y F.acts, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: 2001 0Fiorida Department of Transportation, Office of Polley Planning, Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: ExploraUon of Collision Exposure In Florida, NuStats lnternalional, Austin, Texas, December 1998. 1o..Collisiorf' and "crash" are used i nterchangeably throughout the report. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS1

PAGE 10

FIGURE 1: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH INJURIES-FLORIDA, 1996 2001 9,000 1--+-Bike -----Pedestrian I 8,000 7,000 ,.... ... 6,000 5,000 4,000 :E 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Soorc:e: Florida OepMment of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles TraffiC C..sh Facts 2001 FtGURE2: B ICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH FATALITIESFLORIDA, 199 6 2001 600 !-+-Bike -----Pedestrian I 500 400 .. :e 300 1i .. 200 100 I ......... -----..- 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Florida Oepartmont of Highway 5afoty and Motor V$hides Troffic Crash Facts 2001 To accomplish the survey objectives, respondents were asked about collision involvement, patterns of travel activity by pedestrian or b icycle modes, perceptions about safety and knowledge regarding pedestrian and b icycle travel, and demograph. ic characteristics of the respondent and household. Trip generation estimates and trip characteristics were calculated and analyzed by demographic and socioeconomic factors. Exposure was determined based on bicycle and pedestrian trip rates and lenglhs; incidental pedestrian travel habits; and perceptions about 2SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 11

safety and knowledge of laws regarding bicycle and pedestrian travel. The survey also provided data to examine trends and make comparisons to the 1998 survey results METHODS In May June 2002, NuStats conducted telephone interviews with 963 Florida residen t s residing in the Tampa, Orlando, Miami, and Jacksonville metropolitan areas to gather data about bicycle and pedestrian travel and crash involvement from randomly selected adulls, aged 18 years and older. English-speaking households 11 were sel ected a t random using a random digit dial (ROD) sample consisting of both listed and unlisted tel ephone numbers. The survey was administered between the hours of 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM EST. The overall survey response rate was 40%. (See Appendix A for additional information on the survey methods and sampling i nformation.) The survey instrument included questions covering the following four main topics: a) occurrence of and probjng details about collisions of which respondents had some personal knowledge; b) patterns of travel activity by pedestrian or bicycle modes or by pedestrian activity linked to other travel modes; c) perceptions about safety and knowledge regarding pedestrian and b i cycle trave l ; and d) demographic characteristics of the respondents and their households . Because the survey was des i gned to solicit Information about pedestrian and bicycle crashes in which the respondent o r their families or close associates were i n volved, a screening question was added near the beginning of the interview that inquired whether the respondent a household member, or an acquaintance had ever been involved in a bicyc l e or pedestrian crash. (See Append i x B for survey quest i onnaire.) Respondents selected to report on a collision (either personal or proxy reportlng)1 2 were subject to a long interview. In contrast to the short Interv iew, which collected data on patterns of bicycle and pedestrian travel, perceptions about safety, personal knowledge of pedest r ia n and bicycle travel, and demographic characteristics about the respondent and the respondent's househo l d, the long Interview also collected details about bicycle and/or pedestrian crash I nvolvement. Some respondents provided data on mulliple crashes or multiple types of crashes (bicycle and pedestrian vs. bicycle or pedestrian) or multiple crashes of multiple typ e s. In order to r emain consistent with the 1998 survey, respondents Involved in multiple crashes of the same type were asked to provide data on only one crash Likewise, respondents reporting on multip l e crashes of both types, were asked to provide data about one bicycle and one pedestrian crash 11 In order to remai n consistent with lhe 1998 methodology, only English speaking households were e ligible for the survey. 12 If the respondent provided information about a crash I nvolving other family members or close associates, this is referred to as "proxy" reporting. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F INAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS3

PAGE 12

When choosing which crash to probe interviewers were instructed to select crashes involving th e r espondent first, then household (HH) members, followed by other acquaintances. This was done to obtain the most accurate account of the crash. Preference was also given to the most recent crash in hopes that details about recent .crashes would b e easier for respondents to recall, thus more accurate. The last criterion for crash selection was severity, emphasis given to fatal crashes, then crashes requiring h os pitali zatio n, then crashes requiring medical care, and, fina lly crashes requiring only minor medical assistance. The interviews generated data from 17 4 respondents reporting on 183 collision events (nine respondents reported one bicyc le and pedestrian crash each, the other 165 respondents had one crash each). SURVEY LIMITATIONS Telephone surveys are subject to both sampling and non-samp ling errors. Sampling errors arise because a sample represents something less than the population of inter est. As such, the characteristics of the sample will not likely exactly match the characteristics of the population. Non-sampling errors inc lude errors that arise. during or following data collection, such as selecting ineligible respond en ts, interview ing subjects who purposely provide non truthful data, or mlscodlng data. Some of the differences in statistica l estimat es between the 1998 and 2002 surveys may be the result of both sampling and non-sampling errors Sources of error unique to this study Include the following: 1. Proxy Reporting: The majority of crash report data came from respondents that were no t personally Involved in the crash event. Ins tead, the respondent acts as a "proxy" for the individual involved in the crash. As such, the crash data gathered during these Interviews may not be as accurate or reliable as dat a gathered from those respondents personally involved in b icy cle or pedestrian crashes, 2 No time lim i t on date of crash occurrence: Although inf ormati o n on when the crash occurred was obtained, there was no time criteria established. Therefore, data obtained from crashes occurring in the distant past (greater than three years ago) may not yield data that is as accurate as data obtained in the more recent past (within three years). 3. Surveys conducted in English only: The 2002 survey was administered in English only to remain consistent with the 1998 methodology. In addition, time and budget constraints do not allow for the translation into Spanish, Creole, and Haitian popula r dialects spoken in the Miami area. As a result, all non-English speaking households in the survey area we re inelig ible for the survey. As a result, the survey findings are not reflective of the attitudes, behaviors, and experiences of non-English speaking households in the four urban ize d areas. 4 Exclusion of non-telephone households: This survey, like any telephone survey, excludes from participation households without telephone serv ice Therefore, the opinions of portions of the survey population, such as low-Income households that often do not have telephone service, may not be represented in the survey. 4SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F I NAL REPORT

PAGE 13

To reduce the amount of non -sampling error Introduced into the survey, NuStats provided Intervi ewe r training to survey technicians prior to survey administration. The training session lasted approximately four hours and culminated with a mock interview session where NuStats survey techn i cians interviewed each other. The mock interview session ut ilized the Computer Assist ed Telephone In terview (CATI) software pro gram NuStats project manager and project coordinator were available to answer questions asked by survey technicians 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY

PAGE 14

PROFILE OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS This section provides demographic Information about survey participants such as age, gender, employment s t atus, income, etc. As in the 1998 survey.the sample of participants was des i gned to i nclude r esiden t s o f t he Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando and Tampa metropolitan areas. The 1998 survey yie l ded a n approx i mately equal d istr i but i on of households from each of the sampled F l orida metropol i t an areas. For this reason, no geographic quotas were es t ablished at the onset of the 2002 study The sampling plan was designed to produce a minimum of 1,00013 comp l eted in t erviews and detailed data on a minimum of 60 crashes. It was anticipated that approx i mate l y 20% of the 1 ,000 completed interviews (200) would be long interviews. (This assumption was made based on the results o f t he 1998 surv e y, when 144 l ong Interviews were collected). I n the 2002 study, 174 surveys (18%) were long i nterv iews that included detailed data regarding bicycle or pedestrian crashes. (See Table 1 for details) The distribution of long interviews rang e d from 30% i n Tampa to 18% in Miami. Four percent of all call attempts made in Miami resulted i n contact with a Spanish spe a king onl y resid e nt, wit h whom no i nterview could be conducted compare d to Tam p a (0. 3%), Jacksonville (0. 2%) and Orlando (0.7%). TABLE 1 SHORT AND LONG SURVEY DISTRIBUTIO N BY METROPOLITAN AREA M etropolitan Short lnto!VIows Lon g lnteNiews Total lnteNiews illca 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 Jac\son ville 201 129 45 31 246 160 (25%) (24%) (26%) (23%) (26%) (2411) M iami 135 149 32 30 167 179 (17%) (28%) (18%) (22%) (17%) (27%) Orlando 247 123 45 40 251 163 (31%) (23%) (2611) (3011) (2611) (24%) Ta""" 206 131 52 33 299 164 (2611) (2511) (30%) (2511) (31 % ) (25%) Total 789 532 174 134 963 666 A G E AND GENDER Table 2 shows the age distribution of r espondents by gender Of the 963 survey respondents, 59% were fema l e and 4 1 % we r e ma le. As was the case i n 1998, fema l es were more likely to be contacted than males. The majority of respondents In both 1998 and 2002 fell between the ages of 21 to 49 years (58%). All respondents except those under 20 (which had a 3 per c entag e point decli ne from 1998) remained consistent in 2002.14 "Initially, 1,010 surveys wer e completed but due to a programming error, 47 cases had to be deleted. Thus, the final number of completed s urveys Is 963. 14Durlng the 1998 survey, data were captured f rom respondents aged 1 6 and older. Institutional Review Board requirements to obtain parental consent for those under 18 years of aga prevented the Inclusion of respondents under 18 years ln the 2002 survey. 6SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIA N C RASH E XPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 15

TABLE 2 AGE DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER Under Age20 21 to 49 yea111 64 yea111 65 yea111 and older Percent Total Gander Sample 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 Male 1.2% 2.0% 23.6% 23.0% 9 .9% 8.0% 7.1% 5.0% 41.3% 38.0% Female 1.5% 4.0% 31.2% 32.0% 14.0% 14.0% 11.6% 12.0% 58.7% 62.0% TO(al 2.7% 6.0% 54.8% 55.0% 23.9% 22.0\'1 18.7% 17.0% 100.0% 100.0% HOUSEHOLD SIZE Table 3 shows respondents by household size for the 1998 and 2002 surveys Over 80% of respondents' households have two or more persons living the household. Th e mean household size is 2.71 persons (slightly smaller than the 1998 mean household size 2.84) This number Is slightly higher than the current figure for the entire state of Florida, 2.46 persons per househo ld. TABLE 3 2002 AND 1998 HOUSEHOLD SIZE Household Size 2002 1998 One person 19.21'1 16.7% Two person 37.3% 34.7% Three person 16.4% 18.3l'o Four person 15.1'1,1 17.3% Frve plus person 12.0% .. 13.0% TO!il 100.0% 100.0% Note. 2002 mosn hoUS(;}ho/d SIZe.: 2 71 RESIDENCE Identical to 1998, the 2002 survey respondents are overwhelmingly full-time, year-round residents of the state (98%). Only 2% indicated they were seasonal residents of Florida. Th is is not surprising given that many part-time or seasonal residents tend to visit Florida in the winter. As previously noted, data collect i on was conducted during the late spring/early summer. DRIVER'S LICENSE AND DISABILITY Approximately 91% of all respondents reported having a valid driver's license (92% in 1998). Six percent of the total sample Indicated that they suffer from a disab11lty that makes travel outside the home difficult. Overwhelmingly, these were older respondents. EMPLOYMENT STATUS Tab le 4 illustrates the employment status of the respondents compared between 1998 and 2002. Almost one half of all respondents are full-time workers (49%), which is consistent with the data from 1998 (57%). The number of retired increased by almost 5 percentage points, from 19% in 1998 to 25% in 2002. This may be an indicator of Florida's aging population. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS7

PAGE 16

TABLE 4 2 002 AND 1998 EMPLOYMENT STATUS 0 Employment S tatu s 2002 1998 Fullijme 49.1% 57.0% Pal lime 9.0% 8.0% Retired 24.8% 19.0% Not wofldng 17.1% 16.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% HOUS E HOLD INCOM E Tabl e 5 s h ows the income distribution among survey respondents by metropolitan areas. All i ncome di stribu t ions were sim il ar between t he 1998 and 200 2 surveys, with the except i on of t h e $60,00 0 and over category, which i nc r eased by 1 1 percentage points, from 23% i n 1998 to 3 3 % in 2002 Jaeksonvillo H H Income Total 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 s titan $15,000 1 2 .8% 6 .3% 9 .8% 11.711. 7.8% 3.7% 9.0% 7 3 % 9.8% 11.7% 11.9% 12.0% 17.9% 1 4 .6% 12.91'. 17.5% 14.0% 14.3% 15.8% 26.9% 15.8% 27.9% 25.4% 25.8% 23.9% 27.4 % 20.8% 25.5% 3 1 .9% 22.6% 22.3% 19.5% 32.5% 20.5% 26.2% 21.9% 34.2% 23.1% 39.8% 20.1% 32.7% 25.2% 0 29.1% 25.0% 33.2% 100.1% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS I N HOUS E HOLD Table 6 illus trates the percentage Cif respondents with children under 16 In their household. More t han onet hird of the r espondents (35%) Indicated that they have at least one person u nder the age of 16 years liv i ng i n the i r househo l d (a s lig ht inc r e a se from 1998). H ou s e ho l d s with youn g er p eople tend to have mo r e bicyc l e and pedestrian t r ips, due to the p r esence of un li censed drivers. TABLE 6: CHILDREN U NDER 16 1 N HOUSEHOLD-2002 AND 1998 C hildren under 16 2002 1998 0 64.9'k 66.7% 1 16.5% 1 4 1 % 2 12.0% 1 2 .5% 3+ 6 .6% 6 .6% Total 100.0% 1 0 0 .0% 8SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCL E AND P EDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F I N A L REPORT 1998 7.4% 14.3% 27.0% 28.1 % 23.3%

PAGE 17

Table 7 shows that near ly one-fifth (18 %) of the surveyed households Indicated having driving-age persons (aged 16 to 20 years) liv ing with them and 5% have two or more persons in that age group. TABLE 7: YOUNG ADULTS AGE 16 TO 20 IN HOUSEHOLD-2002 AND 1998 Young aduHs16 to 20 2002 1998 0 82.5% 81.8% 1 12.2% 13.1% 2+ 5.3% 5.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% BICYCLES PER HOUSEHOLD Table 8 shows that the majo r ity of households have at least one bicycle (58%), a slight increase from 1998 (56%). Because one of the areas of interest is bicycle travel, it is important to examine the presence of bicycles in the surveyed households The 2002 mean number of bicyc l es per househo l d was 1.39. TABLE 8' BICYCLES PER HOUSEHOLD-2002 AND 1998 Bicycles per 2002 1998 Household 0 41.8% 44.4% 1 18.0o/o 17.9% 2 19.5% 18.2% 3 1 0.7% 10.5% 4+ 10.0% 9.0% Total 100.0% 100.0l'o Note: 2002 mean number ( f s w nousehokl = 1 ycle p 39 Another way to analyze the number of bicycles Is bicycles per person. When <;lata are examined this way, the 1998 and 2002 data are similar Table 9 indicates that, from 1998 to 2002, the percentage of households with no bicycles decreased by approxima tely 3 percentage points, while the percentage of househo l ds with one or more bicycles pe r person increased by approximately 5 percentage points. TABLE 9 BICYCLES PER PERSON-2002 AND 1998 Blcycles'per Per>on 2002 1998 0 41.8% 44.4% Leosll\an one b'cycle 27.8% 30.8% One or more b'cydes 30.3% 2 4.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 2002 B ICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY FINOINGS9

PAGE 18

MOTOR VEHICLES PER HOUSEHOLD Table 10 shows the number of motor vehi c les per household. In 2002, 96% of respondents' households had at least one car. More than half (66%) of the r espondents had two or mor e cars in their household. Households with two or more motor vehicles saw decreases between 1998 and 2002, while one-vehicle households increased from 22% to 30% The mean number of motor vehic l es per househo l d I s 1.95, down from 2.1 in 1998 TABLE 10 MOTOR VEHICLES PER HOUSEHOLD-2002 AND 1 998 lloto r Vehldes per 2002 1998 Household 0 4 .2% 5.0% 1 30.3% 22.0% 2 43.7% 44.0% 3 13.7% 17 .0% 4 + 8 .1% 12.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% Simi lar to the previous study, the survey sample was drawn from four Florida metropo li tan areas and cannot be used to generalize to the entire state, because it has not been statistically weighted and/or expanded to the states' population parameters. SURVEY PROFILE Based on the above results, a typical survey respondent can best be described as : Female (59%) 21-49 years (58%) Have 2 or more person living in HH (83%) Florida resident (98%) Valid driver's license (91%) Full time worker ( 49%) HH income of $40,000 and greater (55%) Have children 16 years and under (35%) Have a t least one bicycle (58%) Have at least one motor vehicle (96%) 10-SURVEY F INDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F INAL REPORT

PAGE 19

COLLISION REPORTS This section details information reported by survey respondents ab out the occu rrence of motor vehicle-related pedestrian and bicycle crashes as well as details about these crashes in which th e respondent had some personal knowledge. Information abou t pedestrian and bicycle collisions are presented separately. COWSION REPORTING The g53 interv iews genera t ed data from 17 4 respondents reporting on 183 collision events (nin e respondents reported one bicycle and pedestrian crash each, the other 165 respondents had one crash each). If the crash event involved either a household member (HH) or a non-household acquaintance, the respondent acted as a p roxy for the Individua l invol ved in the crash and prov i ded the crash specific data Crash data ga in ed v i a proxy reporting is lik ely to be less accurate than crash data obtained from persona l accounts and caution should be used when interpret i ng the statistics presented in this sec t i on. As shown in Tab l e 1 1, sl ig htly over one-fourth (26%) of the respondents reported on collisions in wh ich they we r e personally involved, while more than one-half (52%) reported on collis io ns involving a non-household acquaintance. TABlE 11 COLLISION REPORTiNG2002 c r .. h Reportcd For Totlll COllisions Percent Tot.l 2002 Cotnsions 2002 Respon
PAGE 20

PEDESTRIAN COLLI S IONS Respondents were asked about pedestr i an crashes that involve d themse l ves, their imm e dia t e family {or member of their household), or someone e l se close to them (i.e., nei ghbor, friend, or relative not residing in their household). As previously stated, a total 'of 69 pedestrian crashes were reported. Table 13 depicts that of these 69 p edestrian crashes 13% were se l f-reliorted by respondents. An overwhelm ing major ity of respondents r eported by proxy (87%), an 11 percenta g ep oint incr e ase from 1998. Among proxy rep o rting, crashes were reported for close non-household friends and relatives {58%) or other h o usehold members {29%). TABLE 13 REPORT OF PEDESTRIAN CRASHES SELECTED FOR LONG INTERVIEW-2002 AND 1998 Crash Reported For Total PercQnt Total Percent 2002 2002 1998 1998 Respondent 9 13% 17 29'k Other HH Merrllefs 20 m 14 24'!1 Non-HH Members 40 58% 27 47% Total 69 100% 58 1 00' k As was the case in 1998, the maj ority of the reported pedestrian crash data is from the perspect i ve of the pedestrian (59%), while 39% is from the driver's p erspective, an d 2% Is from the passenger in the vehic l e See Figure 3 for further deta i l. FIGURE 3: REPORTING PERSPECTIVE FOR PEDESTRIAN CRASHES-2002 AND 1998 N {2002) 12SURVEY FINDINGS Pedestrian Driver Passenger in vehicle 1 2002 11119981 2002 BICYCLE A N D P E DESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F INAL REPORT

PAGE 21

Figure 4 shows that police reports were completed in more than three-fourths (84%) of the crashes reported by respondents (an increase from 69% in 1998). Twelve percent of the crashes reported on were not captured on a pollee report (down from 21% In 1998) while report status was unknown 4% of the time. FIGURE 4 : PEDESTRIAN CRASHES REPORTED TO POUCE2002 AND 1998 No69 (2002) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Po l ice Report Filed No Police Report F iled 1 i119981 Unknown Figure 5 shows that slightly over one half (52%) of the pedestrians Involved In reported crashes were a ged 20 years and under. This is a la rge deviation from the 1998 survey, when nearly one half of the pedes trians involved in reported crashes were between the ages of 21 an d 49 years. FIGURE 5: AGE OF PEDESTRIAN INVOLVED IN CRASHES-2002 AND 1998 N:69 (2002) 45% -1-----------------40% -l---------------35% 30% f--ii6'11o:;.,.---l!<;r----25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Under 16 16 to 20 21 to 49 50to64 65 or older 1 1119981 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS-13

PAGE 22

Figure 6 shows t h e age distribut i on for the driver s invo l ved in the crashes. As in 1 g98 the age range most likely character isti c of the driver involved in the crash was 21 to 49 years (46%). FIGURE 6: AGE OF DRIVER INVOLVED IN PEDESTRIAN CRASHES2002 N=48 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Under20 21 to 4 9 50to64 65 or olde r Notes: Comparativ e dats for 1998 was not available for use. The 2002 base data Includes only those who reported age. were asked when t h e crash occurred 14 Indicates : about one hal f (49%) of the r eported crashes occu r red ea r lier t han 1998, 41% between 1998 and 2001, and 10% w i thin the past year Most of the r eported crashes occurre d d uring daylight hours (67%). Thirteen percent occurred during the dark, 13% dur i ng du s k, an d 7% d urin g dawn hours. Traffic was r eported as "light" in 44% of the crashes: "moderate in 35% of the crashes, and "heavy" for 2 1 % of the crashes Nine t y-three pe r cen t of all c rashes occ urred during "clear" weather cond i tions, with 7% during rain. Similar to t he 1998 survey, the 2002 data suggest that the majority of pedestrian crashes occ ur at "non-intersections. Table 15 shows that 63% of the reported pedestr ian crashes in 2002 occurred at "noni ntersect i ons", with exact l y one-forth occurring at signalized intersections and 12% occurrin g a t non-signalized intersections. For those crashes occurr i ng at intersections, 45% of the respondents reported the presence of p e destrian signals (up from 17% in 1 998). Thirty four p e rcent said there were no crossing signa l s (down 26 percentage points from 1998), and 21% could not recall whether signals were present or not. l4-SURVEY F I NDINGS 2002 B I CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F INAL REPORT

PAGE 23

TABLE 14: OCCURRENCE OF PEDESTRIAN CRASHES-2002 AND 1998 N=63 (2002) Occurrence 2002 I 1998 O.te More than three years ago 49%. 34% Past llllee years 41% 51% This year 10% 15% TlmeoiDy Daylight 67% 74% Dar!< 13% 19% llu$k 13% 3% Da-1m .,., 2% Traffic Conditions U!jlt 44% 48% Moderate 35% 27% Heavy 21% 25% Wealher C
PAGE 24

TABLE 16: CROSSWALK AVAILABILITY AND USE BY PEDESTRIAN2002 AND 1998 I n tersectio n Crashes I 2002 I 1998 Crosswalk AvailabUity (n) Pedestrian crosswalks 48% 30% No CIOSS\VIii
PAGE 25

TABLE 19 : PRECRASH CONDITIONS-2002 AND 1998 N (2002) p,. .crash Condition 2002 1998 Walking/Jogging samodlrealcn as lralllc 17% 17% Crossing Slreet 61% 4 1 % Jogging owosite directioo as traffic 10% 9% Action net proYided 12% 33% Although not shown in the table, the pedestrian wa l ked into traffic in 49% of the reported crashes and came out from between parked cars In 9% of the crashes. Table 20 shows the activity of the motor vehicle prior to the crash. In 25% of the crashes the motor. vehicle made a turn and then struck the pedest r ian The motor vehicle was backing up when it struck the pedestrian In 5% of the reported crashes. The motorist left the roadway and then struck the pedestrian in 21% of the crashes. TABLE 20 : MOTOR VEHICLE ACTIVITY SURROUNDING PEDESTRIAN CRASH-2002 AND 1998 N (2002) Pre-Crash Condition 2002 1998 Vehicle turned and then struck pedeslrian 25% 2 1 % Vehicle baclhcl Used by Driver or PedesiJian 2002 1998 Driver 7% 9% PedeSlrlan 6'4 7% Note. Tsble e xcludes DKIRF response. 2002 BICYCLE AllD PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY FIND I NGS 11

PAGE 26

BICYCLE COLLISIONS Respondents were asked to report motor vehicle-related bicycle crashes that involved themselves, a household member, or someone close to the m (I.e neighbor, friend, relative). As shown In Table 22, of the 114 bicycle crashes probed, over two-thirds (67%) were by proxy for close non-household friends and relatives (49%) or other household members (18%). The respondent was directly invo lved in 33% of the reported crashes TABLE 22: REPORT OF BiCYCLE CRASHES SELECTED FOR LONG INTERVIEW-2002 AND 1998 N'114 (2002) Crash Reported For Toial Percent Total Percent 2002 2002 1998 1998 Respondent 38 33% 21 25'4 Olher HH Members 20 18% 43 52% Non-HH Membel$ 56 49'4 19 23% Total 114 100% 83 100% The majority of the infor mation reported is from the perspective of the bicyclist (83%), while 14% is from the driver and 3% is from a passenger In the vehicle. See Figure 7 for details . FIGURE 7: REPORTING PERSPECTIVE FOR BICYCLE CRASHES..; 2002 AND 1998 H=114 (2002) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Bicyclist Driver Passenger in vehicle 1 1119981 Figure 8 identifies the frequency with which erashes were reported to the police. Nearly two thirds (64%) of the crashes reported were also filed under a pollee report. This Is an inc rease of 10 percentage points since 1998. Twenty-eight percent of the crashes are not associated with a police report, while report status was unknown 8% of the time. 18SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 27

FIGURE 8: BICYCLE CRASHES REPORTED TO POLICE-2002 AND 1998 N (2002) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pollee Reoort Flied No Pollee Reoort Flied Unknown 1 2002 1!119981 Figure 9 that more than one-third of the reported crashes (40%) involved an adult b icyclist age 21 to 49 years. The 10 to 15 year age group accounted for one-fourth (26%) of all bicyc l e riders Involved in crashes. FIGURE 9: AGE OF BICYCUST INVOLVED I N CRASHES-2002 AND 1998 N (2002) under 10 10 to 1 5 16 t o 20 211<> 49 5Q t o 64 65 or older [i20o2 819981 Notss: The 1998 data sot did not Include sufflcJent rosponS6s from respdndent 65 years or older to facilitate 8 statist.icany valid analysis of thjs Q{l6 group. Tho 2002 base dats includes only th0$e whO reporled 698. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F INAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS19

PAGE 28

Bicyclist skill level was mostly reported as "advanced" or "casual" (50% and 40% respecti vely). "Basic" skill s were reported 10% of the time. As Figure 10 suggests, the age of the driver involved in bicycle crashes was 21 to 49 years exactly one-half of the time. The age of the driver was not known 35% of the t ime. FIGURE 10; AGE OF DRIVER INVOLVED IN BICYCLE CRASHES2 002 N=114 (2002) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 50% 16to20 2 1 to49 50 to 64 65 or<*ler Notes: Compsratlve dat a for 1998 wtts not available. The 2002 base data in'!udes only those who roporlJJd a(J&. Table 23 provi d es detaile d information regarding the cond i tions surrounding the b i cycle crash. More than one-half of the repo rted bicycl e crashes occurred earlier than 1998 (58%), 33% between 1998 and 2001, and 9% within 2002. More than two-th ird s of the reported crashes occurred dur i ng daylight hours (69%, a decline of 19 percentage p o i nts from 1998). Eighteen percent of the reported crashes o ccurred during dusk hours, 1 2 % when it was dark, and 1% during dawn hours Traffic was reported as "light" in 53% of t he crashes, "moderate in 30% of the crashes, and "heavy" for 18% of the crashes These t raffic conditions are nearly identi cal to th e 1998 rep o rted b i cycle crash characteristics. Nine ty-five percent of all crashes occurre d during "clear'' weathe r oonditions, with 3% during rai n and 2% during fog. As Tab le 24 indicates, approximately half of the crashes (46%) occurred a t l o cations described as non-intersections, 31% at non-s i gnalized intersections, and 23% at slgmilized intersec t ions Fo r crashes no t occurring at intersections, three-fourths (76%) were described as occurrin g at "mi d -blo ck ". In one-third of the reporte d crashes (26%), the crash occurred because the motor veh i cle was making a turn, then struck the bicyclist, while 21% resul t ed from a motor vehicl e turning directly i n f r ont of a bicyclist. Tabl e 25 suggests that seven p ercent of t he crashes were a result of the motor vehicle striking the bicyclist while backing up, and another 2% are attributable to a motor veh i c l e pulling out from a parking space. Sixteen percent of the crashes were due to the mot o rist ignoring a stop sign or traffic signa l. 20-SURVEY F INDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 29

TABLE 23 OCCURRENCE OF BICYCLE CRASHES-2002 AND 1998 Occu.rrence I 2002 1998 Date (n) Mor e l han lhree }'eaiS ago 58% 37% Past three years 33% 42% This year 9% 21% nme of Day (n) Daylight 69'.4 88% Dark 12'k 10% 18% 1% Dawn 1% 1% Traffic Condnlono (n=101) Light 53% 51% Mode
PAGE 30

Table 26 shows that exactly one in five crashes (20%) were the result of the b icyclist swerving into traffic, while only 7 % were the r e sblt of the bicyclist ignoring a signal or stop sign. One percent of the crashes were attributed to the bicyclist makin g a left turn in front of t he vehicle. TABLE 26: BiCYCLIST ACTIVITY SURROUNDING CRASH-2002 AND 1998 N (2002) Bicyclist Activity 2002 1998 Bicyclist swerved into traffic 20% 33% Bicyclist lgncred signal or stop sign 7% 18% Bicyellst made left lum in front ol ehicle t% 3% Note. Tots/s do not add to 100% due to differtmt response rates per quesUoo. Table excludes DKIRF responses. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents ind icated that, to the best of their knowledge, the crash was not the fault of the bicyclist, while another 24% said it was the bicyclist's fault. Eight percent of the respondents could not assign fault. See Table 27 for further detail. TABLE 27: FAULT ATIRIBUTED TO BICYCLIST-2002 AND 1998 N (2002) Fautt Atfrlbuled 2002 1993 Yes 2 4 % 40% No 68% 52)1 Cannot Assign Blame 8% 8% To the best of the respondents' knowledge, alcohol usage among drivers was reported for 18% of the crashes (up 11 percen tag e points from 1 ggs), and among bicyclists only 6% of the time. See Table 28 for further detail. TABLE 28 ALCOHOL USAGE IN BICYCLE CRASHES-2002 AND 1998 22SURVEY FINDINGS Alcohol Usage Reported I 2002 1998 Ddver (n=90i Yes 18% 7% No 82% 93% Bicyctlsl (n) Yes 6% 2% No 94% 98% 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 31

TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES AND TRIP CHARACTERISTICS Thi s section discusses trip" generation estimates based on I nformation provided by survey respondents on patterns of personal travel by pedestr ian and bicycle modes o r by pedestrian activity linked to other travel modes, as well as genera l Information about such travel by other household members. Characterist ics about recent bicyc l e and pedestrian tr i ps made by the respondents are disc u ssed as well as exposure from incidental pedestrian trips. TRIPRATES As shown in Table 29, residents in the surveyed Florida metropolitan areas reported generating 1.08 walk trips per person per day (up from 0.91 wa l k trips per person per day in 1998) and 0.17 bicycle tr i ps per person per day (up slightly from 0.12 bicycle t rips pe r person per day In 1998) TABLE 29 B ICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DAlLY TRIP RATES SuiVey Bicycle Trip Pedeslrla n Trip Rate Rat e 1998 Florida Bicycle 3fld Pedestrian 0.12 . 0 .91 2002 Florida Bicycle 3fld Pedestrian 0 .17 1.08 Pe
PAGE 32

TABLE 31: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DAILY TRIP RATES BY METROPDLIT AN AREA2002 Metropolitan Area Bieyckt Trip Rate Pedestrian Trip Rate Jacksonville (n=246) 0.12 0.99 Miani ( n) 0.25 1.13 'Orlando(n) 0 .16 1.06 Tampa (n) 0.17 1.12 Nolo. Trip ratss provided In trips psr psrson per day ROLE OF TRIP LENGT H The average length of bicycle and pedestrian trips In miles by trip purpose is shown in Table 32. Comparabl e data are not available from the 1998 survey.16 In 2002, the al(erage bicycl e trip lengt h was 4.53 miles and the average pedestrian trip length was 1.17 miles. For both bicycle and pedestr ia n modes, the largest percentage of trips was made for socia l recreational and shopping purposes. Social or recreation trips were the long est by distance (5.07 for bicycle and 1.47 pedestrian respectively). In con t rast, only 5% of the respondents ind ica ted their most recent b icycle and pedestrian trip was for work commute purposes. TABLE 32: TRIP PURPOSE AND TRIP LENGTH2002 Trip Purpose Percent Total Percent Trips Total Trip s Home to viO
PAGE 33

(21%) reported making a sing l e trip during that same time period Of the remaining respondents, 10% reported making two trips, 5% reported making three trips, and 8% reported making 4 or more trips. TABLE 33: fREQUENCY OF PEDESTRIAN TRIPS2002 Number 0 1 2 3 to StiiVey. N9163 Percent Sample Making Number of Pedeslrion Trips 55% 21% 10% 5% 8% As was the case in 1998, the most active age group for pedestrian activity Is the 21 to 49 year age group (1.20 dally p e destrian trips per person) As shown in Table 34, respondents age 65 and older reported making 1.01 daily pedestrian trips per person while 50 to 64 year old respondents reported making 0.84 dally pedestrian trips per person. All age groups reported making more trips in 2002 than were made In 1998, with the largest increase reported for respondents age 65 and o l der (up from 0.58 daily pedestrian trips per person). TABLE 34: DAlLY PEDESTRIAN TRIP RATES BY AGE2002 AND 1998 N=921 21to49 501o64 65 and older 2002 1.20 0.84 1998 1.1 4 0.62 0.58 In 1998, males made more daily pedestrian trips per person than females. In 2002, males reported a daily pedestrian trip rate of 1.27 trips per person per day, while females reported a rate of 0.93 trips per person per day. Th e 2002 data in Ta b le 35 suggests that the male trip rate is approximately 35% higher than that of females. TABLE 35: DAILY PEDESTRIAN TRIP RATES BY GENDER2002 AND 1998 N9163 (2002) Gender 2002 1998 Mala (no398) 1.27 1.05 Female (noSSSJ 0 .93 0.83 Note; Trl. ratos videclln trl. s r erson erda pro ppep p y 24-llour rlod prior to suMJ y: 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS25

PAGE 34

Table 36 implies that respondents with physical disabilities make fewer pedestrian tri ps per person per day (0.79) than do r espondents who do not have physical disabilities (1. 10) These estimates are similar to those generated in 1998, as physically d i sabled respondents also reported lowe r tri p rates rel ative to non-disabled res p ondents TABLE 36: PHYSICAL DISABILITY AND PEDESTRIAN TRIP RATES 2002 AND.1998 N (2002) Physical Disability 2002 1998 Yes (n=67) 0.79 0.88 No (n=896) 1.10 1 .32 Note: Tri rates ViekJd In lliJJS per person pet da't for 4-hour nor to .st11vey 'P pro y pe p administration As Table 37 Indi cates, data suggests that non-licensed individuals rely more on pedestrian travel than do respo nden ts with driver's licenses. In 2002, non licensed r espondents reported making 1.16 daily pedestrian trips per person while licensed respondents reported 1 07 daily pedes tri an trip s per person. The magnitude of the difference In trip rates between licensed and non licensed respondents has decreased from a difference of 0.18 pedestrian trips per person per day in 1998 to a d i fference of 0.09 pedestrian trips per person per day in 2002 TABLE 37: DRIVER'S LICENSE STATUS AND PEDESTRIAN TRIP RATES 2002 AND 1998 Ucensed Driver 2002 1998 Yes(n:893} 1.07 0 .74 No(n=70} 1.16 0 .92 . . Note. Tnp rotes provided m tnps per person per day for 24-hour p9rfod prior to survey With the exception of 5-person hou seholds, trip rates fo r all household sizes have increased from 1998 to 2002 The l argest increase occurred In 6+ person households, where the trip rate increased f rom 0.58 to 1.32 trips per person per day. Table 38 shows that the 2002 respondents make more pedestrian trips than respondents i n the 1998 survey. TABLE 38: DAILY PEDESTRIAN TRIP RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE2002 AND 199 8 N=963 (2002) Persons per 2002 2002 1998 1998 Household Population Population Percent Percent 1 0.98 19% 0 .78 17% 2 o w 37% 0.83 35% 3 1.08 16% 0.87 18% 4 1.26 15% 1.12 17% 5 1.30 7% 1.41 .8% 6+ 1.32 6% 0 .58 5% . NotG. Trip rates provided m trips per person per day. 26SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 35

Similar to the 1998 pedestrian trip rate estimates, 2002 respondents with a full time job reported making more daily pedestrian trips (1.15) than did respondents with part time jobs (1.10 daily pedestrian trips) or unemployed respondents (0 98 daily pedestrian trips). In contrast to the 1998 data part time workers in 2002 reported making more trips than did their unemployed counterparts (see Table 39). TABLE 39: DAILY PEDESTRIAN TRIP RATES BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS-2002 AND 1998 Employment Status 2002 % 2002 Survoy 1998 %1998 Sumy Population > Population Full lime 1. t5 49% 0.97 57% Part ljme 1.1 0 9% 0.82 8% Not employed 0 .96 42% 0.65 35% . Not&. Tnp rstes provided 111 trips per person per day When daily pedestrian trip rates are examined by household size, the 2002 data in Table 40 suggests that households reporting annual incomes from $40,000 to $60,000 are characterif:ed by the highest trip rates (1.38 daily pedestrian trips). This is similar to the 1998 data when this income category shared the highest trip rate estimates with those respondents reporting $15,000 to $25,000 (1.05 personal daily pedestrian trips). Both the 1998 and 2002 data suggest that trip rates do not have a linear relationship with income. Of all households that provided Income, those reporting ann u al Incomes from $25,000 to $40 ; 000 were characterized by the lowest trip rates in 2002 (0.96 perso n al daily pedestrian trips) and 1998 (0.93 personal daily pedestrian trips). TABLE 40: DAILY PEDESTRIAN TRIP RATES BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME-2002 AND 1998 N (2002) Hous-ehold Income 2002 %2002 1998 %1998 Survey survoy Population Population Under$151< 1.07 8% 0.95 6% $ 151o$25k 1.03 11% 1.05 1 1 % $2510 $401< 0 .96 17% 0 .93 19% $40 l o $60:< 1.38 17% 1.05 20% Over$60k 1.0 4 261' 0 .99 21% Refused 0.99 21% 0.63 23% U 1 : Trip tat9S provj(J(Id in ttips pQt p6rson per day As was the case In 1998, households with less than one motor vehicle per adult reported higher daily pedestrian trip rates than did households with greater than or equal to one motor vehicle per adult (see Table 41 ). The data suggests that households with fewer cars rely more on pedestrian travel to make personal trips than do households with more than one vehicle. With the exception of households with no vehicles, all categories of vehicles per adult in 2002 were characterized by higher trip rates than were the same categories in 1998. 2002 B I CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FIHAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS27

PAGE 36

TABLE 41: DAILY PEDESTRIAN TRIP RATES BY MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERSHIP-2002 A N D 1 998 N (2002) Molor Vehlcl .. P 2002 %2002 1998. %1998 A d u l t Survey Survey Population Population Non e 1.24 4%. 1 .37 6% >() lo 0 5 1.36 17% 1 .19 18% 0 6 t o0 9 1.59 7% 0 .69 8% 1 0 to 1.49 0 .94 61% 0 .82 59'!. 1.5 and over 1.02 12% 0 .90 9% . Note. Tnp mtes pmvrded rn tnps per peT'$0n p e r clay Bicycle Trip Generation The frequency o f daily (p a st 24 hou rs) bicycle trips suggests t h at fewer than one i n ten persons m a de any trips. The full dist r ibut ion is Identified i n Tab l e 42. TABLE42 : FREQUENCY OF BICYCLE TRIPS2002 N963 Number of Trip s P erun 1 Sample Makin g Number of Bicycl e Trips 0 92% 1 4% 2 2% 3 t% 4+ 1% Note: Tablo t n mtldeb re ondent in 24-hour eriod prior y sp p to sUNey. More than twot h i rds of r esp o nden t s (69%) said th i s rate of travel by b lcyde was typica l ; 15% o f r e spond e nts said they usually made fewer trips, while 16% said they usually ma d e more trips. See T a b le 43 for further de t ails TABLE 43: TYPICALITY OF R E C ENT BICYCLE TRIPS-2002 N"185 Commen t a b o ut number ollrlpsln 24-hour peri o d prior to Peroen t Sample M aking admlnis1ering survey Number of Trips T }'lll(a l number ollrlps 69% Usuaty make fewer bicycle !rips 15% Usua'!y more t:icyel e t r ips 16% No t9: T a ble excludes ,.. noos. po Travel by age p rovides some interestin g patterns in b i cycle trip r ates, part i cularly with respec t to the older segmen t s o f the Florida populat ion. The trip generation pattern appears to show a marked d i fference between younger and older adu l ts. For the 21 t o 49 year ol d population, the daily bicycle trip ra t e is 0.25 trips The rate decline s to 0.09 for persons 50 28SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 B ICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 37

to 64 years old, and to 0.07 daily trips per person for the persons aged 65 and older. Table 44 suggests that the age groups of 21 to 49 years and 65 years and older are approximately twice as mobile in 2002 as they were in 1998. In cont r ast, the 50 to 64 year age group did not report as many trips as in 1998. TABLE 44: DAlLY BICYCLE TRIP RATES BY AGE2002 AND 1998 N 2 1 to49 50to64 65 and older 2002 0.25 o.os 1996 0.15 0.13 As in 1998, gender is correlated with bicycle travel. The bicycle trip rate for males is twice that of females (0 24 vs. 0.12 trips per day). Because the survey respondents were disproportionately female (59%). the survey results in the overall bicycle trip rates may be slightly lower than they actually appear.17 The data in Table 45 suggests that both ma l es and females are making more daily bicycle trips in 2002 than were made in 1998. TABLE 45: DAILY BICYCLE TRIP RATES BY GENDER2002 AND 1998 Gender Malo (n=398j Female 2002 n.24 0.1 2 1998 Disability (condition that make getting around difficult) did not have a substantial impact on bicycle t ravel rates. About one in 14 respondents (7%) indicated that they have some form of disability. As shown in Table 46 the portion of the survey population that indicated having some sort of disability actually reported more daily bicycle trips than the rema inde r of the population (0.19 daily bicycle trips and 0.17 daily bicyc l e trips respective ly }. This may be due to the disabled population who use bicycles as a form of exercise or physical therapy. TABLE 46: PHYSICAL DISABILITY AND BICYCLE TRIP RATES 2002 AND 1998 N (2002) Physical Dbabitity 2002 1998 Yes (nJ 0 .19 0.17 No (n=8961 0.17 o .os . . Note: Trtp ratos provided m tnps per person per day for 24-hour penod pnor to swvey adminlslraUon 17 The 1998 survey was also characteliZed by a high percentage of female respon
PAGE 38

Almost all of the respondents reported they had a valid driver's license; only 7% did not. As might be expected, those respondents that do not have a valid driver's license reported making three and a half times more trips than those with valid driver's licenses (0.6 1 dai l y bicycle trips and 0.14 daily bicycle trips r espectively}. The data suggests that those individuals without a valid driver's license depend more on bicycles for transportation. See Table 47 for further details TABLE 47: DRIVER'S LICENSE STATUS AND BICYCLE TRIP RATES 2002 AND 1998 N=963 (2002) Valid Drlvetsllcenso 2002 1998 Yes ( n=ll-."3) 0.14 0.17 No(n70) 0.61 0.09 . Noto. 'trip rates provJded m tnps per peT'$on per day for 24-hour penod pnor to wrvey As In 1998, the general trend is for larger households to exhibit higher individual trip rates (see Table 48). Th i s is most likely related to family composition. Larger households are more likely to be characterized by children or young adults, who typically make more trips than older adults Moreover, these adults make more bicycle trips, probably I n conjunction with children. Smaller households may be more like l y to contain older persons who make fewer bicycle trips. The 2002 data suggests that 6+ person households are characterized by the highest individual trip rates (0.40 bicycle trips per perso n per day), followed by the 4-person household (0.28 bicycle trips per person per day). TABLE 48: DAILY BICYCLE TRIP RATES BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE-2002 AND 1998 1 2 Persons per Household 2002 0.14 0 .14 2002 Population Percent 19% 37% 1998 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.19 1998 Population Percent 17% 18% 17% 0.17 8% NIA 5% Table 4g d i splays the relationship between employment status and bicycle trip rates. Unlike the 1998 survey (when the majority of surveyed adults (57%) were employed full lime} the 2002 survey has about an equal mix of respondents not employed as employed full time (42% and 49% respectively}. An analysis of unemployed respondents reveals that over half (59%) are retired and 38% are 65 or older. It is expected that the current state of the US economy Is also contributing to the observed increase in unemployment. The results show that among the three employment groups, respondents that are employed full time exhibit the highest trip rates (0.18 bicycle trips per person per day), followed by unemployed 30-SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 39

respondents (0. 1 7 bicycle trips per person per day), and those respondents employed part t ime (0.13 bicycle trips per person per day). TABLE 49: DALLY BICYCLE TRI P RATES BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS-2002 AND 1998 N (2002) Employment Status 2002 % 2002 survey 1996 % 1996 Survey Population Population Fu;l time 0.18 49% 0.15 57% Part time 0.13 9% 0.11 8% Not efllll(oyed 0.17 42% 0.09 35% Nore: Tm rares f) rov p 'fH11nDft le trl er el'$0n per d eye ppp The 2002 data suggests that the highest bicycle trip rates occur in households with incomes of $25,000 to $40,000 at 0.32 bicycle t r ips per day, followed closely by those households reporting an annual incom e under $15,000, at 0.27 bicycle t rips per day. Unlike in 1998, bicycle trip rates do not Increase linear l y with income. See Table 50 for details. TABLE 50: DAILY BICYCLE TRIP RATES BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME-2002 AND 1998 N=963 (2002) Household Income 2002 %2002 1998 %1998 Survey Survey Population Population Under$15k 0.27 8% 0.02 1% $15\0$251< 0.15 11% . 0.03 11% S25to$40k 0 .32 17% 0.08 19% $40loS60k 0.20 17% 0.21 20% Over$SOk o m 27% 0 .20 21% Refused 0.13 20% 0.08 23% Not9: mp ratas provrdea ;n b1cyc e lnps por person per day. Vehicle ownership and vehicle "demand" (vehicles per adult) have an interesting but inconsistent relationship to bicycle trip rates (see Tab le 51). The highest bicycle trip rat es are in those househo l ds with less than 0.5 vehicles per adu l t (0 30 bicycle trips per person p er day). TABLE 51: DAILY BICYCLE TRIP RATES BY MOTOR VEHICLE OwNERSHIP-2002 AND 1998 N=963 (2002) Motor Vehicles per 2002 %2002 1998 %1998 Adult SuTYey Survey Population Population None 0.30 4% 0.11 5% >OtoO.S 0.30 17% 0.17 18% 0 6lo0 9 0.06 6% 0.11 8% 1.0 lo 1.49 0.13 6 1 % 0.10 59% 1.5 and over 0.23 12% 0.21 9% . Note. Tnp ntte.s provided'" bicyde trips per peroon per dsy. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F INAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS31

PAGE 40

The 2002 data suggests a linear relationship between bicyc l e ownership and trip rates As the number of bicycles per person increases, so does the trip rate See Tab l e 52 for further detail. TABLE 52: DAlLY BICYCLE TRIP RATES BY BICYCLE OWNERSHIP-2002 AND 1998 N=963 (21>02) per Person 2002 % 2002 S urvey 1998 % 1998 Survey Population Populati on None 0.01 42% 0.01 44% >Oto0. 5 0 .24 19% 0.1 2 20% 0.6to0.9 0 .24 9% 0.27 11% 1 0 to 1.A9 0 .29 ?4% 0 .29 21% 1 .5 and over 0 4 8 6% 0.15 4% 'rl rates p v/dod In blc c/o trl s r rson da pro y ppepe per y PROFILE OF PEDESTRIAN TRIPS As in 1998, a series of questions was asked of all respon d ents that repo rte d making at least one pedestrian trip in the past seven days. These questions targeted the most recent pedestrian trip and gathered trip specific quantitative and qualitative data. The results are p r e sented bel ow and provide a profile of the average Florida urban area pedestrian. The following data are based on the responses of 172 survey res p ondents Trip length. Based on round trip distance, about 35% of trips were less 0.5 mile In length; another 37% were 0.51.-1 mile; and the .remalning 28% were over one mile. Route character is tics The 2002 trip rou te condit i ons were: o1 Nearly three fourths (70%) of the pedestrian trips were on sidewalks or dedicated footpaths. o1 Over half of the p e destrian trips (52%) did n o t require cross ing at intersections. o1 A majority of the p edestrian trips (56%) involved walk ing alongside vehicu l ar traffic . o1 More than two-thirds of pedestrian trips (68%) i nvolved crossing str eets EXPOSURE FROM INCIDENTAL PEDESTRIAN TRIPS Additional exposure measures were captured by a series of questions about situations not easily recognized by people as trip s (refe r red to as Incidental pedestrian trips) All r espondents were asked about pedestrian situations beyond the specific pedestrian trips they re ported as t r ips. QueSt i ons were asked atiout situations In parking l ots, or walking from a car or bus, or other such incid e ntal behav iors that would provide estimates of exposure beyond specific trips. Specifically, the question was worded: "Sometimes peop l e can get hurt when wa l king from thei r car or from a bus, just crossing the stree t o r walking from o r to the ca r In a parking lot. "Among the 963 survey respondents, 416 (43%) reported making wal k trips in the 24 hours before the survey, and 172 (18%) reported making wal k trips In the six days prior to the 24 hours before the survey. A total of 588 respondenls (61%) reported making trips in the las t seven days. Due to an error in the Computer Assisted Tel ephone I nterview (CATI) program, only the 18% of respondents who reported making walk trips in the six days pri o r lo the last 24 hours were asked trip specific qual itative and quantitative data. 32SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F I NAL REPORT

PAGE 41

Not counting the walking trips I just asked you about, how many times did you do any of the following?" Results suggest significant exposure of pedestrians in motorized vehicle environments. These include : ./ Twenty-four percent of respondents crossed intersections without lights -a mean of 0.85 such daily crossings per capita (up from 0.69 in 1998) ./ Twenty-two percent of respondents crossed intersections with lights for a mean of 0.76 dally crossings per capita (a slight increase from 0.74 daily crossings per capita in 1998) ./ Seven percent of responden t s indicated they crossed an intersection against a red light this produced a mean of 0.13 dally crossings per capita (ne
PAGE 42

.,.. Trips were generally in residential areas with little traffic-64% were mostly in such areas and another 22% were partiall y In such areas .,.. The majority (61%) of all trips were at times and places without heavy traffic .,.. Fourteen percent of trips required having to cross or travel along multiple busy streets or highways and another 29% required at least one such situation . Most trips were made during daylight hours and In reasonably good weather and visibility conditions .,.. One percent of trips were made at night. Thirty percent were made in the evening, 41% in the afternoon, and the other 29% In the morning hours .,.. Ninety eight percent of trips were made in clear weather; only 4 (2%) out of all reported trips in the last seven days were made in rainy, foggy or other poor weather .,.. Similar1y, almost all trips (83%) were made under daylight conditionsonly 1% was In the dark and another 16% were at dawn or dusk. 34SURVEY FINDINGS 1002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURIO SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 43

PERCEPTIONS OF TRIP MAKERS A portion of the survey was designed to gather perceptions of bicycle and pedestrian trip makers regarding awareness and knowledge of certain safety related guidelines for pedestrian and bicyc le travel; circumstances and specific situations that generate the feeling of danger in bicycle/pedestrian t r ips; and conditions for feeling safer In such trav el. The following section discusses these survey results. AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE Six Hems relating to safe travel in pedestrian and bicycling situations were presented to respon dents who were asked if each item was true or false. The survey generated the following response patterns: There was an overwhelming correct awareness of the law. v' An overwhelming majority of respondents (98%) knew that "bicyclists on the road must stop at stop signs or signals" was true. "' The majority of all respondents (94%) said II was true that "motorists are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians at crosswalks. "' Nearly nine out of ten respondents (88%} knew that 'it's legal to ride a bicycle while intoxic ated" was false. Questions about safety ind icated much l ess awareness and some confusion. "' Responden t s were almost evenly split on "the safest way to ride a bicycle is against traffic." Slightly over half (54%) correctly Indicated that the statement is false; however, an almost equal amount (4 4%) thought the statement was t rue. The remaining 2% did not know. "' The perception of safety at night with proper reflectors on bicycles also produced a mix of results. One-third (33%) felt that it was true that "bicyclists are safe at night as long as they have all their reflectors." Respondents were not asked about their knowledge of laws that requ i r e lighting on bicycles operated between sunset and sunrise. v' "Flashing or 'don't walk' signals when crossing a street at an intersection means you should stop and go back to the curb" seems to generate some confusion. Over three-fourths of respondents (76%) consider this to be true. Twenty-one percent thought it to be false and the remaining 2% did not know for sure. In retrospect, the confusion was probably the result of the wording that combined flashin g and don't walk" in the same statement. CONDITIOI'IS THAT PRODUCE PERCEPTIONS OF DANGER As in 1998, both pedestrian and bicycle trip makers were asked about whether and why they felt safe or unsafe while making such trips. In th ese questions, the approach was more qualitative and produced open-end responses. A solid majority of pedestrian and bicycle trip makers felt safe when making their trips. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS35

PAGE 44

Ninety-two percent of respondents reported that they were not nervous when making their most recent pedestrian trip, while 87% of respondents reported that they were not nervous when making their most recent bicycle trip. Among those that felt unsafe, most of the reasons cited fell into one of two categories: driver beh avior or infrastructure. Regarding driver behavior, respondents commented that "speeding" and "inattentive" drivers made them feel uncomfortable. Regarding infrastructure ; respondents cited that heavy traffic, poor lighting at night; and the absence of bicycle paths/sidewalks made them feel unsafe. With an approach similar to what made people feel they were In danger, respondents were asked about what would make them feel safer. This produced recommendati ons for improved infrastructure {about 1/3 of the responses), better driver behavior (about 20%), and a few miscellaneous responses that are unrelated to any changes that can be implemented. Nearly half of the responde nts (44%) said there was bas ically nothing that needed to be done; they already felt safe. 36SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSUR E SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 45

TREND ANALYSIS An analysis of the 1998 and 2002 survey data provide an opport!Jnity to identify trends in survey respondent demographics, bicycle and pedestrl
PAGE 46

per day, while female daily pedestrian trip rates were 0 93 person trips per day The data suggests that males make more bicycle and pedestria n trips than females. When pedestrian trip rates are cross-ta bulated by age, the results show that respondents aged 21 to 49 years make more dally trips (1.20 pedestrian trips per person per day) than any other age group. Pedestrian trip rates have increased {from 1998 to 2002) for every age group. The la rgest change in personal daily bicycle trip rates h as occurred in the 65 and older age group {up from 0.58 in 1998 to 1.01 in 2002). As was the case In 1998, full time employees in 2002 exhibited the highest mean pedestrian trip rate {1.15 pedestrian trips per person per day). The largest change from 1998 to 2002 was s een In part time emp loy ees {up from 0.82 pedestrian trips per person per day in 1998 to 1 10 pedestrian trips per person per day in 2002). Cross tabulations of pedestrian trip rates with inoome does not produce any notable trends. However, in both 1998 and 2002, those respondents reporting household incomes between $40,000 and $60,000 were characterized by the highest trip rates (0.95 pedestrian trips per person per day in 1998 and 1.38 pedestrian trips per person per day in 2002). Ukew ise in both 1998 and 2002, those respondents reporting household incomes between $25,000 and $40,000 were characterized by the lowest t r ip rates {0 .87 pedestrian t rips per p e rs o n per day in 1998 and 0.96 pedestrian trips per person per day in 2002). A comparative analysis of the 1998 and 2002 data reveal a trend for pedeslrian tr i p rates to increase as household size increase's. Trip rates by household size have increased for every category, with the most significant change occurring In 3-person households and 5-person households {each increasing 0.22 trips per day over their respective 1998 trip rates). Bicycle Travel The mean number of b icycle trips has increased from 0.12 t r ips per person per day in 1998 to 0.17 trips per day in 2002. As in 1998, males made more bicycle trips per day than f ema les. Th e male bicycle t ri p rate increased frcm 0.17 bicycle trips per person per day in 1998 to 0.24 bicycle trips per person per day in 2002. While not as significant as the male trip rate, the female trip rate increased from 0.09 b icy cle trips per person per day In 1998 to 0.12 bicycle trips per person per day in 2002. The data suggests that both males and fema les make more b icycle trips today than in 1998. The 1998 and 2002 data suggests that the bicycle trip rate of the 21 to 49 year old age group has increased significantly, from 0 15 bicycle trips per person per day In 1996 to 0.25 bicycle trips per person per day in 2002. This age group was characterized by the highest bicycle trip rate in both the 1998 and 2002 surveys When the 1996 and 2002 bicycle trip rates are cross-tabulated with employment status, the largest increase is exhibited by unemployed individuals {an increase from 0.09 bicycle trips per person per day in 1996 to 0.17 bicycle trips per person per day in 2002.) The trip rate of full time workers has Increased from 0.15 bicycle trips per 38SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 47

person per day in 1998 to 0.18 bicycle trips per person per day in 2002. The bicycle trip rate for part time workers remained relatively the same (0.11 b icycle trips per person per day In 1998 to 0.13 bicycle trips per person per day In 2002). When the 1998 and 2002 bicycle trip rates are cross-tabulated with income, some noteworthy trends appear. Income was partitioned into five unequal categories. The income category with the highest trip rate in 2002 was the $25k to $40k category (0.32 bicyc l e trips per person per day). In 1998, the highest trip rate was characteristic of the $40k to $60k age group (0.21 bicycle trips per person per day. Additionally, there has been a significant increase in bicycle trip rates for the three lowest Income catego ries ($0 to $15,000, $15,000 to 25,000, and $40,000 to $60,000), while there has been a redu ction in bicycle trip rates for the highest income category. The data suggests that low-income households are making more daily bicycle trips today than in 1998. The exact opposite can be said of high-income households. The data also suggests that a significant dec rease in personal daily bicycle trip rates occur once mean household income reaches $60,000. Mean bicy cle trip rates have Increased for every househo l d size category for which data was collected in both surveys, with the exception 3-person and 5-person households. The largest changes were exhibited by 1-person and 4-person households, which increased from 0.05 bicycle trips per person per day in 1998 to 0.14 bicyc le trips per person per day in 2002, and from 0.19 bicyc le trips per person per day in 1998 to 0.28 bicycle trips per person per day in 2002, respectively. . c RAstiEs RePoRTED ev INTERVIEWED REsPONoi:Nrs There has been a significant increase in the percentage of pedestrian and bicycle crashes for which police reports were filed. In 1998, 69% of ail reported pedestrian crashes involved police reports. In 2002, this percentage incr eased to 84%. Likewise, in 1998, 54% of the reported bicycle crashes involved police reports In 2002, this percentage increased to 64% There has been a significant increase in the percentage of pedestrian crashes that occur at dusk (3% in 1998 and 13% in 2002). This is coupled with a decrease in the percentage of pedestrian crashes that occur in daylight (74% in 1998 and 64% in 2002). The percentage of crashes that occur at non-signalized intersections has declined significantly from 28% in 1998 to 13% in 2002. There has been a noteworthy increase in th e percentage of crashes that occur while pedestr ians are crossing the street. In 1998, 41% of ail pedestrian crashes occurred while the pedestrian was crossing the street. In 2002, this percentage Increased to 61%. The 1998 and 2002 data suggest that bicyclists aged 21 to 49 years seem to be the age group most at risk' of being Involved in an crash. This is logical as they exhibit the highest trip rate. Consequently, they are subject to the highes t levels of risk exposure. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS39

PAGE 48

Similar to the conditions surrounding pedestrian crashes, the re has been a significant decrease In the percentage of the reported bicycle crashes that occur in daylight hours (88% in 1998 and 69% In 2002 respectively) and an increase in the percentage of the reported bicycle crashes that occur at dusk (1% In 1998 and 18% in 2002 respectively) COLLISION ExPOSURE Several estimates presented In this report suggest that exposure to crashes may be increasing for bicyclists and pedestrians in Florida. Perhaps the most convincing of these estimates concern trip rates, as both b icyc le and pedestrian trip rates and trip len gths have increased over the past four years. Based on the survey results, the bicycle trip rate Increased from 0.12 mean trips per person per day in 1998 to 0.17 mean trips per person per day in 2002, representing a 29% increase Similarly, the pedestrian trip rate increased by 16%, from 0.91 mean trips per person per day in 1998 to 1.08 mean trips per person per day in 2002. The average bicycle trip length increased from slightly over 4 miles in 1998 to 4.53 miles In 2002. These estimates translate into more Floridians walking and bicycling than four years ago As such, more bicyclists and pedestrians sharing the road with motorists l ead to greater collision exposure, if factors related to safety remained constant. Bicycles pe r household and bicycles per person have also incr eased since 1998 Jhe mean number of bicycles per household increased from 1.28 In 1998 to 1.36 in 2002, while the mean number o( bicycles per person increased from 0.45 in 1998 to 0.50 .in 2002. More bicyCles available for trips could also lead to greater co llision exposure for bicyclists. In addition to estimating exposure to collisions based on pedestrian and bicycle trips the survey also examined Incidental exposure as a result of a pedestrian walking from or to the car in a parking lot, or walking from a car or bus. Survey results suggest t hat collision exposure for pedestrians in motorized vehicle environments is increasing. Fr om 1998 to 2002. more people Indicated crossing intersections with and without lights (0.76 and 0 .85 daily crossings per capita in 2002 respec t ive l y compared to 0.74 and 0.69 da ily crossings per capita in 1998 respectively); walking on roads without sidewalks (0.50 daily trips pe r capita In 2002 compared to 0.42 daily trips per capita in 1998); and crossing the street in the middle of a block {0.69 dally crossings In 2002 compared to 0.59 daily crossings in 1998} Almost half of the respondents (47%} indicated walking in a parking !ot "with busy vehicle traffic" up from 35% in 1998. Incidental exposure will l ikely continue to increase based on the general trends Indicating that people are traveling more across all modes. As traveling increases, peop le will be walking more to access cars and public transportation. The survey gathered information about Florida residents' awareness and knowledge of safety issues regarding walking and bicycling, which can be used to help determine their potential for risky behavior as a pedestrian or bicyclist. There were no significant differences between the 1998 and 2002 survey result s However, a l arge percentage of respondents continue to be confused about the safest way to ride a bicycle on a road and how to cross a street at an Intersection when the "DONT WALK" signal is flashing. A to tal of 44% of the 40-SURVEY FINDINGS 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 49

respondents thought that the statement "the safes t way to ride a bicycle is aga i nst traffic", was true. Almost three-fourths (76%) thou g ht t he s ta te ment, flashing or 'DONT WALK signals when crossing a street at an intersect i on means you should stop and go bac k to the curb", was true. The respondents' confusion may have r e sulted from misin t erp r eting t he qu e stion Nonetheless, these results indi cate possible a reas t o focus fut ure ped e strian and bicycle safety educat ion efforts. F inally, whe n pedest r ian and bicycle fata l crashes and inj ury trends 1 0 are compared to the survey resul t s, the da ta suggest that pe d estr i an and bicycle s afety i n genera l may be improving. We !NOUid antic i pate that if collision exposure Is Increasing, there wou l d be a cor resp ondin g inc r ease in th e number of fatali t i es and inj u ries invo l v ing b icycle and pedes t r i an crashes However, t he number of b i cyc l e injur i es has stead i ly declined since 1998 and the number of bicycle fa t a l ities has remained fai rly cons t ant ove r the same per iod. These results suggest that there may be other factors tha t have k ept bicyc l e Injury a n d fatalities from rising due to increased exposure, such as inc r eased bicyc l e helmet usage, statew i de and l ocal bicycle education programs bicycle l anes and paths share the roa d signage, local re-str i ping ordinances, and other bicycle safety efforts In contrast, the Increased collis ion exposure for pedestrians may part l y explain why p edestrian Inj uries have been on the increase since 1999 While pedestrian fata li ties have increased s l i ght l y since 1999, they are st ill not as h i gh as fa t alilles were In 1996-1 9 98, suggesting that safety may be Improving for pedest r ians as well. 1 9A more accu r ate plcWre coul d ba determined If cr ash data from the four surveyed metropolitan areas were examined and pedestrian and b i cycle trends evaluated. This was no t possi b l e due to budget a nd time cons trai nls 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY F INAL REPORT SURVEY FINDINGS41

PAGE 50

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION OF METHODS 42 -APPENDIX A 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 51

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION OF METHODS Questionnaire NuStats, under the direction of the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR} at the Unive r sity o f South Fl o rida, modified the 1998 survey instrument for use in the 2002 survey . To ensure the comparability of data for an ana l ysis, onl y minor modificat i ons were made. Final app r ova l of the questionnaire was obtained from CUTR. The questionnaire contained 1 93 data elements and approximately 110 questions, including one screener question t9 confirm the elig i bility of r espondents for partic i pat ion in the survey. The final English instrument is inc l uded in Appendix B. Data Colle ction Survey specialists conducted data collection for the survey May 15-June 3, 2002. A ll survey speciali sts received a train ing session befo r e beginning actual data collection activit i es. In add i t i on, i n t erviewers were continually monitored to ensure the highes t l evel of quality was maintained The average len gth of each comp l eted survey was 1 0 minutes. Data were i n t eractively collect e d d urin g the interview ph a se u t iliz ing compu t e rassisted telephone interviewing (CATI} software. The use of CAT I interviewin g was essent i al to the research process to ensure that the right inf o rmation was c o lle c te d in t h e most efficient manner. Edit ch ecks Prior to analysis of data, NuS tats performed a comprehensive ed it check for each completed interview. During this phase, each interview was required to pass a rout ine edit check p r o g ram b e fore i t coul d be inclu ded in the final data set. Routine edit checks i nc l ude such i t ems as data rang e limit a tions and sk i p p atterns. Survey Population The universe for the survey was defined as English-speaking res i dents a t least e i ghteen years o l d with te l ephone service In one of the follow i ng Florida metropolitan statistical a r eas (MSAs): Jacksonville, Miami, Or l ando, or Tampa. Tab l e 53 shows the distribut io n o f survey comp l eted by MSA. TABLE 53: DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEYS COMPLETED BY M SA 2002 N=963 Miami Jacksonville O!lando Tampa Tot a l MSA MSA Surveys %Surveys Houseltolds Completed Compl et.d 776,774 t67 17\'o 425,584 246 26% 625,248 299 31% 1 ,009,316 251 26% 2,491,367 963 100% 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL R EPORT APPENDIX A-43

PAGE 52

Of the households surveyed: 41% of the indiv i duals were male and 59% were female. 10% had an annual household income of less t han $15,000, 14% had an annual household income of $15,000 to $24,999, 21% had an annual household Income of $25,000 to $39,999, 22% had an annual household irioome of $40,000 to $59,999, 33% had an annua l househo ld income of $60,000 or greater Sample Generation A total of 7,843 p i eces of listed and unlisted random digit dial telephone sample was purchased form Survey' Sampling, Inc. The sample, equally distributed between the four survey MSAs and lagged wi t h a numeric MSA oode, was then screened for working numbers us ing the AXCIOM database. Of the original pieces, 1,264 were discarded due to disconnects, leaving a tota l o( 6, 736 working numbers. These numbers were then part itioned into multiple random sub samples (or replicates) of 300 each. A replicate Is a systematically selected sub sample of a sample that is geographically representative of the entire sample; the primary benefit of which Is that the interviewers did not need to contact the entire samp le In order to ensure proper representation. These replicates were released sequentially over the field period. 44 APPENDIX A 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 53

Sample Distribution The table below outlines the sample dispositions and calculates the final response rate. TABLE 54 SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE RATE DISPOSITIONS Eligible Sample Completed sampl e cau back Langoage barrier Refusal EUgibilrty Unknown Answering machine Busy No A nswer lneOglble Sample Businesslg..,.rnment Comp
PAGE 54

APPENDIX 8: 2002 QUESTIONNAIRE 4 8 -APPENDIX B 2002 BIKE ANO PEDEURI A N SURVEY FINAl R EPOR1

PAGE 55

2 002 FLORIDA BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN EXPOSURE SURVEY I NSTRUMENT"2ll INTRODUCTION Hello, my name i $ a n d I un callinz OR be h alf of the Fklri ENl) J ->CD 0 'OQ E."'D 0 ""ENll 0 ->J!:ND 0 .,END 0 a..:-ENO 0 Fiat t need bo CC)nJin:n tha t )'OU IIR' a t lust18 )'W'$ old. is this correcc? N ........ .. .. .. .. . .. .. .... : .. . .. . .... . .. ................. ... 963 10'"' YS ............. ..... ,,,_ , .... ...... .......... ........... _1 963 IOO'XI NO .......... .. .......... .. .................. .............. 2 0 0% ACt SKPIS IS !kcQ an)'Ol'IC yocr howcl1f))d that Is 18 or C>lder'liF TilERBIS SOMEO,'f 1!+ SELSCT YES NO MATIER WHAT n(5RE IS S0MF.0NE I&+. B1JT1HEY AR.BN1' HOME: YOU't.LBF.SET'TtNG A CALLBACK. 'J'HERS IS SOMOOI\'E II+ BUT THEY Jt.EPUSf!. THE CAI.L; YOlii .LSE..LECTRP. N ....... ...... ..... ...... _,_,, ................. ..... .. .. ... ..... 0 100% Yes SAY: May I p l mespeak 'ililb lha! person? I o:ae-JN"''OI 0 ()% NO .... .. ... ........ ... .. .. ........... ....... ... .. .. .. ..... 2 --> INT I O 0 ,, Ql As l 'llllendoocd, wt ai'C i ntmuccl in tnmc sa(!y. yoa e\ttboan persooa l ty i nvoi\'Cd I n a coUisloo or emil il'lvotvi,QS &Oil'ICOIIt on a le)'le ora p Q3: 7: QINUM How many w:i&tlts? If THEY DON'TKNOW,GETTI-tMT0ESTIMATS.. RANGE: 1 1 0 N .. _,,_,,_,,_,,_,_,,_, ..... ... ............ .. _, <17 1 00'.4 Hn anyone in your imrnedi;Ue f a m ily llu.t livu 'Ai lb )'DO e'\>er bc:en l n vo 1v-=d i n O Q3 , QZN U M HO'o' :idenl;.. not inc l ud i ng that )'QII m entioned for rF nmY DON'T KNOW. Ol.iT THEM TO ESTIMATE. RANGE: I 10 N . ....... ,_ ... ....................... -............. .............. 40 100'% 10: Q3 Hils an)'ODC else you pc:mn aUy ktlow wc:U, lll:t a reladvc, J\Clghbot, or dose frie nd beco involY<. i n such a; "ruh o r co l lisio n i n FloriO? (PROBE: IF AQUArN'l'ANCIS WAS I N SAM: ACClDENT, SELECt m") N .. .. .. .. .. .................... .. .. _,... ....... .. ...... ... 963 100'1 Yes ..... ... .... ................ ....... ... .............. _, 1 lOS 11% No .. .... .. ...... . .... .. ................. . ........... ........... 2 855 Jh Q3NUM Ho.v trtany not tneludlll$ lbose you tn(l!lt[oncd alrudy? If THEY DON'T KNOW G' THEM 1'0 SSTIMA Te. R.ANGE: I 10 N,. ...... ........ . .... . .... .. ...... ........ ....................... 108 ''This version of the survey lnslrument has been modified s lighUy from the version used dur i n g data collection The complex ski p pattern us e d t o select w h ich crash to probe was excluded i n order to make U 1 e suJVay l nstrumont e a s ier to read a n d understand. The survey f requenci es i n d i cate a to t a l of 1,010 completed interviews. A ll surveys collected from respondents less than 18 years old wer e destroyed. The anal ysis i s based o n 963 completed surveys. 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY F INA L REPORT A P PENDI X B-4 7

PAGE 56

N ... ... ............ .. .. ?(:3 LONO ... .. . ... ,,,_ ,,., _,, ......... ... .. .... _,,_,,_,, O 1 7 4 IS% SHORT .. ... ... .. .. .. .... ........ ........ .. .. ............. I 7 811 82'% 13: N ........................ : ....................... . .. ,_ .......... .. l'l=de31ri31'l .... ...... ............. .... _,,_, _,,_,,_l Bkycl b t ... ....... . ....... ........ . ........... .. . ... .. .. . 2 20% 82% SKOkT How Uriotl$ l tns collision+\t.'Cte lhesc collisicm$1 Did Qn)'CIIC die Of for a t day, lcc:r in jl.U)' rcquiri:n.s trt:ltnxt:'! l by !MS ordoclor, or a n:a l minor injiJt)' tM.t did noot med i ea l tr'(a ln'!t n l, (lr no i r.jwy ataJI ? OlEC.K ALL THAT APPLY N ......... .. ..... .. ....... _,,_ ,,_,, ,., _,,_ ,., 10 IOO'X. FATAL ...... ................... ... .. ... ....... .... .. .. .... I 1 10% J\EQUUl' MOSP'IT ALIZA ne: FOR A DA '{ 2 4 J...ESSERC\'J'URYREQUTRINOMSDICAL'l'IU!ATMENT 3 3 3Im MJNOR INJURY THAT DID NOT'NE.0 CAt. TReATMENT 4 I 10% NO INIURY AT AU .. -....... .. _,, .. ......... 5 2 2 0% IS1 Q16PF "1 Did tl!i$ OOili$iMftbc.st collis ions hap11tn iR Olt pll!iC 1\\'0 YC.lT'$, Of before that? CHECK ONLY ONE. JF BOTti, SELECT WITHIN PAST TWO YEARS N ......... -.. ..: ...... ............... ... .............. -... .. ..... 1 I OCt% LT 2 'fEARS AGO ......... ... ... .. .. ..... .... _,, .. ... 1 (l l>ofl'2YSARSAG0 .......... ...................... ... ...... 2 1 QI-. D u S lhitcUisionlth(se colils:loos 11'1 the pan tWI>)"ntt_()r before IMr! CHECK 0:'\'LY ON If 80Tn, SELECT W ITKIN PAST 1WO YEARS N .. .... .... ....... ......... ... . ..... .. .. .. .. ......... .. 4 100% LT2 YEARS AGO ...... .. .. ... -t. : .................... .. I 2 50'% YSARS AGO . ... ... ... ... ............... .. .. .. 2 l 50'% 17 : QJ6PM N ...... ... ........ ... ............ .. .... .. ....... .. ....... 3 100% LT2 YEARS AOO .... .. .. ................................ I I 3:3% M T 2 YE.ARS AQ0 .. ................ -....... .......... 1 2 67% 18: EMS or doctor. or .11 mino r i njwy lh111 di d not need N.., .............. _ .......................... .. ... ... ... .. FATAL ....... .. ... .................. _ ........... I REQU IRED JiOSPIT ALIZA T I ON FOR A DAY 2 100% 0% LESSER lNJURY RfQUlRINO MEDICAL TREATMENT 3 Ml?.'OR INJURY l'H..\TDJDNOTNEEDMEDlCAL TREATMENT 4 NO INJURY Ai ALL ...................... .... ... .... 5 "'' Q16PN 1'1311? .. I Q168F IZ JOOY. "" I:W. 4 $% '"' )'"1'$
PAGE 57

21: QI68H 1!.KI!.'ll!i/f){PJ,fiJ!e1l'.)'.{tJr;:Jl/lmPfiN1.ll!W'JJ:, D id lhis coilfSIOilCS h3ppm in lb$ put two )'W'J, ot bot"ore llt? Cf-lliCK ONLY ONE-If DOTH. SBlCT WITfil"N' PAST TWO YEARS N .. ---------6 LT2 YEAJtS AGO-... .......................... .. I Z 3-3' '-Jo.tTl YEARS AGO .. .. .. 2 4 22 : Q16f!M Did dli$ Wliion.'lhese collision' bappcn i n the pesc 1\\'0 )"eirs, o r before thai? CHeCK ONLY ONE IP 80TH SEL'ECT WJTlDN PAST TWO YEARS N .. " S IOO'W. L1' 2 YEARS AG0 .. .... .... ... _,, ........ ...... .... 1 I 2'"' MT2YEARSAG0 .... ,,,.,,_,,,,,, _,,,_,,_,,_2 4 QI6BN Did Ibi s eollisioos happen i n iC ptst two ycm, or before lblt? CH.QC. ONLY ONE If' BOlli, SetECT WitHIN P ASf TWO YEARS N = ........ -....... -........ ..................... .. -... ......... 19 100% t..1' 2 YEARS AC:Q ...... ... -... .... -............. ...... 1 10% LBSSERJNJURY REQUlRINO MEDICAL TREATMEN'T 3 4 2C% MINOR.INJURYnfATDtONOfNEEDMEDICALlllEATMENT 4 3 10% NOJNJURYATALL ..................... .. .............. $ 4 20% 26: DSd tldscollis3olll'thest coll_i$ions fnppe:n i n the: t wo o r be:fM CHECK Oh"L Y ONE If BOTII, SEJ.ECT WITHIN PAST TWO YEARS N .................... ............ ................. ... ....... 3 1 00% LT2 YEARS AGO .... ...... ............. ...... .... .... 1 0 M'f1 YeARS A00 ......... .... ...................... _,.2 3. 100% Z7: Q.UJtH !!l D i d t hls hiiJipeA in the tv.'() ()C' before that? CHECK ONLY IF DOTH SE L ECT WlTIDN PAST TWO YEARS N ........... ... ...... .. ............... ... ........ ............ _,, I ICO'A LT YEARSAG0 ..... ........ ,,_,, ......... ... ..... 1 I I:J.% YEARSAG0 ... ..... ...... ......................... 1 7 8S% 23: BOTH, SELECf WITHlN PAST TWO YEARS LT2 YEARSAG0 ... ... :.. ..................... ..... ... 1 MT2 YllARS AGO .. ... ......... ... -............ .... 2 :9: QUiPN ... :,:. :.i'-:;f..t>,- '"''t. !.''":.' '. Dd this co llisiolll$ fulppen in tbe two ye&T$, or be ((Ire tNt? CHECK ONLY Ol.'ffi lF BOT1l. S ELECT WITHIN PAST lWO YEARS N '"' ...... ........ -........ 2 IW-4 LT1 YeARS AGQ,_,_ ,,,. ........ ...................... l 0 00.4 MT 2 YEARS AGO ........ -... .......................... 2 2 100% 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINA L REPORT APPENDIX B 49

PAGE 58

N .. -----... ,.,,_ _ , ,, _,, PA'T AL .. ,,_,,,_,_, .,, ... .. .. ,,_ _,,_,,,,,_,,. 1 REQlJIRED HOSPl TALJZATlON FOR. A DA Y 2 LESSER INJURY REQ\JUUNO MEDICAL TREATMEm' 3 MCNOR INJURY nt\1' DID NOT NEEO M&>ICAL. TAA1MENT 4 2.S% .NO INJURY AT A(..l,.., . ... . .... .. ... .. S 21% 31: Q:Z,BF ll6flill 10111 Drdill;((, i[G.fOiiimi,sloa.s tllpjlert two )'ellll" qrbef' ore thai? OJT:.CK ONL v WBO'l'H. SELECTwrrePkSF 0 N ...... ... ,,_,, .... .. _,, ......... ,,_,_, ,_,,_ 2 l.T 2 YeAR.$ AQO, _ ,,.,_. .. .. ,_, H,, .. ,_I 1 Mt 2 YEARS AQQ, _ ,_,_,, ........ _ ... ,_2 I SO% .)2: Q16BH 11'1. 'Did happen i:t 1be past two llu.:? CHECK ONLY ONE IP BOTK. SSLECT WJTKlN PAST TWO YEARS N .. ,_,,,,,_ , , , _,,. .. ... .... ... ... ,_,,_, S 100% LT l YeARS ... _,,J I lO% MT 2 VBA'RS AGO .. _ _,,.,, .. ,_,_,,_ 2 4 SO% L!2 YEARS AGO .. .. ... ........... ........... w ..... J M t 2 YeARS ACO .... w _ .......... ... .... 2 ''"' '"" 3-1: QZ,BN Did Oli$ collision ; happen ill the past \'.\'0 yuT'&, or bef0te dut? CHECK ONLY ONE-JF BOTH, S...ECf WlTHlN PAST TWO YEARS N .. _,,_ _,,_,,. .. ........ _ _ _,,_ _,,. 6 . L T'2 YEARS AGO ........ ,,, .. ,,_ ,_,_, : .... :.. .. I I l?% MT2 YEAR$ A G O ...... ....... ,,,_ _,,_ , 2 S Q3Q4 CHECK ALt. l'HA'I' APPLY N .. , .. ... ,,_, ............ -....... _,._ ,,.,, , P!Cwitll .. . ...... ... ... .. ... ... , 1 BiC)'eli$1 ..... _,, .. _ , .. ........ _,_,,_,, _ , "'' Q>Q$P JioYI U$ "'1-1 lh S af.foo WCI'C \he$ (()JI.iSiOII$? DkJ 3.Q}'t)lte 0: rtqUl:t l i C$il l tiliTil1 10 lOf Ill ktil I dJsy, or 3. ksll:r injay rcqu i riflg med1Callll:3tflten! b y EMS or doctor ora teal rnlnor ill,}u ry d 1 a t dld nee need medical tmttnC11t, (lr no at all? CHECK ALL TilAT APPLY N ,_,,, .,, .. .. ..... ... ... .. ...... ... .... ...... . ........ . 44 100% FATAL .......... ... ....... ... .. ...... .............. ... -... 1 14 3"2% RE QUtR'SD HOSPil'ALTZA TIONFORAOAY 2 18 41% LESSER INJUltY REQUtRl'NO MEDICAL'T'RGATMr:NT 3 1 16% MD\ OR OOVRY THAT DID NOT NEED ).ffiDICA(.. TREAThfeNT 4 4 9% NO INJURY A T ALL,_, _ ... ..... _,,_,,_5 3 7% l11 Q36PP Did this collisiOns hll'ppm in the past two ytll'$ 01 Wcce that? CHECK 0NL Y ONE IP BOTH, WITHIN PAST TWO YEARS N .......... ... .. ... .. ... .. ,_ ........... .. ,_ ... ... .. .... .. 14 100% LT2 YEARS AGO .. . .. ...... ....... .. .. .... ,,_,_,, .. I 29% MT l YEARS AGO ... ........................... .... ... 2 JO 7 1 % J8: Ql"H Ci lECK ONLY ONEIF BOTH, SElECT \\')THIN PAST TWO YEARS N,.. ,,,_ .. ... _ ,,_ .. ... ... ... .. ,_ ... .... .. .. LT 2 YeARS AOO ... -.... ....... .... ... _,,, ....... 1 MT 2 YEARS AGO ............ .. _,_,.,,_, _,, ..... l 50-APPENDIX 8 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 59

3J: QJ6PM D?d dli:!; die pMt I'A'O yurs, or bel'Oorl: thal'i N = ............... .. ... . ... ,_ ... .... .... .,_ .. ............ 7 100% Lt 2 YEARS AOO ................... , _,,,_,,_,,, .. I 4 57% MT 2 YF.AR.S AGQ .. . .......... ... . .... ............ .. .. 2 3 ., Q36PN CHECK ONLY ONE IF BOTH, SELECT WlTIUN PAST TWO YEARS L T 2 YEARS AOO .... .......... ... ......... .... , ..... I t.IT2 YEARS AGO .. .. ............... ...... ........... 2 "'' EMS or a real ntimr ixljwy d id DOl r.ecd :. injwy N ......... ... .... ..... ... . .... ..... .. .. ... ... ...................... 77 FA TAL ...... .... .... .............. .. ... .... . .................. I IS J9% REQUJRDtl0SPlTAlJZATIONf0stADAY 2 21 27% LCSSSA.IN'IUR.Y REQUUUNG MEDlCAL TREATMEf' MEI>ICAL. TRB.-\ TMENT 4 20 26% NO CNJVRY A T ALL .. .. .. ... ...... .. .. . ...... .. 5 10 IJ% 4l: QUBF )'J ... ... ...... ... .... ........ ..... ... .. .. ....... .. ,..., . .. LT'1 YEARS AG0 .. .. . ................ ... .......... 1 -MT 2 YeARS AG0.-.......... ......................... -1 11 80% 43: Q368H Did cl!i; collisiOA''tllese collisions haJipcll in the p a st two )'UI'S, orbcfm thai? CHECK ONL Y 0{\':S IF BQTH, S6LOCT WITHIN PAST TWO YEARS N .... .. .. ... ..... .. _., ... _.,_ ,,__ ... _.,_ ... .... .... 1 1 100% LT2YEARSAG0 .. .. ............................... .. 1' 8 l$% M1'2 YEAR.S A(JQ ........................... ........ ...... 1 13 62% 44t Q36BM N "' .......... .,_ .................... .. ................. .......... .. t1'2 YEARS AG0 .................. ...................... 1 6 43% l.tT 2 YEARS ACi0 ...................... .......... ..... .. 2 8 Si'% 45 : QJ6&..-OMI this colUSionS l1appcn Ill the 1 ,.'0 or be r o:e lllat? 0 lECK ONLY ONE IF BOTJ i SEl.ECT WlTJ DN PAST TWO YEARS N"' .. ............. .. ......... _,_ .... ....... ...................... 20 100'.4 LT 2 YSARS AGO ..... .. .. ...... ..... ..... ...... .... .... l 7 J.S% MT2 YEARS AG0 ................. .......... ....... ...... 2 13 6S% 46: S ELBC '.rl!Y!!ti':J!l!(I.J'3!:1!i11J.'&IZ1Lt?MQPo.'IOi!!.!IIJ1-.<;!if!!iitl'!i. PRESS ENTE.R WHEN YOU'VfiSELECTED A N rNCIOeNT N,. -.. ........... .. .... ... ... .......... .... .... ...... .. 1?9 PEDESTRIAN .... ........................ ... .. ..: ..... .. I 61 34% BICYCL6 .. .... ... .. ... .... ... ... .. ..... .... ..... ... .. .. 2 109 61% -eo Q36 BOllt: .... ....... ............ ........... ... ....... ... ....... .. ) 9 S% Now J 10 ask 90n'le qucstl0s aboutt11 e &celdetlt. W cr your ch\141 spoust/ oth) dlc ptdestria.n, d1C dri\'tr, ()ra puseneeO N .. ... .. . ....... .. . ....... .. . ... . .. .. ... .... ...... 7(1 100% Pcckslri;n ....... .... ..... ...... .. ..... .. M ... -... ... 1 42 60% Driver ............ .. ... ....... ...... .. .... ... ... ... 2 21 39% Patitfl8,Ct .. .. ... .. ....... .. ...... .... .. .. ..... .. ..... 3 I 1% 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINA L REPORT APPENDIX 8-51

PAGE 60

.,., To oCyour knowled;$ "''liS it mouJy tM peclestria.n':l tuM? N .. ---.. .. ---" -"--"---... ?0 Yes .. ...... . .. . ... ... .... .. . .. .. . ,,., , . ....... 1 29 41% No .... ......................... M ........ ...... .......................... 2 3S SO'Jh DKIRP ....... ,_,._ ,,. ........... . ..................... ,,_ ... 9 6 9% Q9 to thebc$c of)'OIIt roell l tbltooll ldon lak pla ce? PROBE FOR EXACT DATE ANY DATE UPTO CUR.Rf.NT DATE fORMAT: YYMMOD N.... ...... .. : ... ,, ,,,,, , ,,_,_,,, ,,, _, ,,, ,,, ,, 69 100% 50: QIO At apsmixtmatdy "'b).t t ime did ic uke PROBE FOR. EXACT Tl.ME t iM E T1iW PSRlOD 1"HJS lS NOT MlL11'ARY TIMS, 8U1' .ROOULAR TIME. 16: *' S A.M. OR 0600 P.M. N"' ...... .. ....... .... ........ "............................... ......... @ .. ....... A.}-1. U 1 4 lOy. P.M ........ ............ .. ....... ... ................ . ..P .M. tJ S S SO% 511 QUAD 'To tbe best of )'OW' n:eolleclio n w h a t was the a dd rQ I 6 Ql3 Ql .. IQo Q16 Q15 Q16 52-APPENDI X B 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 61

59; W14 d1C 11\e rn:Midlo o h block? N .. .. "--.. $J 100% Ycs .. ..... .. .............. ............. .. .. .. .. ........... 1 26 49% No ....... .. .. ... .................................. ---2 2() 3 8 % OKIRF ... .. .... .. ........ . .. ....... .. . .. ... .. .. .... ... 9 7 13% .. Was !he $.1 dri\'cwa)"t N .. -.. -...... ._ .. , ................. : .......... .... ......... Yea .......... .... ........... -.................................... No ...... ........................... ,_ .. ........... ............... 2 DKIP.f ... .............. .. ................... .................. .. 9 61! Did lho into traffic? N ... ........................... .... -. . .... .................... .. .. .. Yei ............................................... .... ............ I No .. .................. .... ...................... ......... ...... .. .. '3 3 1 Dt s 100% 1"' 1l% "" 10()l' 49% 4l% 6% 100% 9Y. .... 1 % Ql? Q1S Q" QlO Qn W u the pt-dcwian w.z.lking.jos&ille. or runrtlng alOn & lbe Md in t he s:uneili.-.:tlicm ;u lllc lnf&, Of crm.si:ng tltNIZ'I:cl, trdftc? N D ................ .................. -.......... ................... 69 Same illttttklo u tnlf'JC .... .............................. 1 1 1 11'% .................. ........... ............... l 41 6 1 % A&11131 tra.O".te .. ... ..... ........... ...................... 3 1 DXIRf ................. .... ......... : ............................... 9 8 12% .. Q11 Wa.1 tbe veh.iele maldfiS lllunt a.nd lhen sln.lek the Ftckstrilln? N ................................................ ..... ... ....... .. -69 Yes ... .............................. .. .. ................... -....... 1 I S 27.% No .......... ...... .. .. .... ...... .. . .. ........ . .. ............. ..... 2 1 7 6$% DKIRF ., ................ ........ ..... . ........... .. ..... .. . ... 9 7 10% 6S: Qll W as the uti when it fiti'Uck the pcdutri1n? N ,., ..... ....... .. .. ....... .. .. . ............... 69 Ycs ...... ....... .. ..... .. . ....... .. .. ...... ........... .... ....... 1 3 4Y. No ........... ............. ......... .... ...................... ... 1 61 81% OKIRJI' .. ............ ...................... ................ .... 9 s 1% "'' Q2A 0 Cit motoriM leaVe the roodway? N.............................. ............ .. ... .... .. .. .......... .. .. 6!1 100% Yes .... .... ......... ......... .. ........ . .. .. ... ... .. ...... 1 14 10% No .............................. ...... ............. ...... ... .. .. ...... 3 4'1 6S% l>XIRF .............. -......... ........... ......................... 9 3 12% Gl' Ql5 To die best otyour know1Cf1t8, bad lbe drivcrbccn drinking? N .. ......... .. ........... .. .. _............ ...... . ..... .............. 69 tOO% Yes .. .. ...................... .................. ....... ........... 1 5 1% No ............ ......................... .. .. .. ...................... ... 2 -49 71% DKIQ.P ...... .......... ... ...... . .. ..... ....... ........ ....... .. 9 1 S 22Y. 68: Q16 To lhe-your kl:low\cdgc, llad Ole bteo drinking? N ... .. . ... ... . ....... . .. .... ....... ............ .................. 69 Yes ....... ........ ......... ................................. .. ...... 1 4 6% No ............................ ..... ............ .............. ..... .... 2 $4 78% OKIRF ..... .................. ................. ...... ....... .... 9 II 16% 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 8-53

PAGE 62

'" Q" sid ewalkS &\'1-iltblc pedestrian? N ... ---... ... .......... ............ .. ... 69 100% 37 ' co>Q29 36% Yet .......... ......... ..... ...... ......................... ....... t N1> .... ..... .. .. ......... .......... ........... ... ........ ........ .... 2 DKIRF -.. ..... . .. ? 7 10% "' Ql8 Wu tlli$ a Qr sotrcttwlltl 32 100% 38% N '"" ........... ............. ................. .. ,_ .. , .. , ,.,, YN .......... ................ ....... ........... ....... ... ........ J l'-'o .... ........ ...................... ...... .. .................... . 2 IS "" DKIRF ........ -.................................................. 9 $ 1 6% 71: Q" OltJ tbc police &Ill I'Oport on thG cnsb? N .... ......................... ........... .. .. .. ................. .. 69 100% Yes ... ............... .. ............................... .... ....... I S8 *'" No .......... .. ................... .......... 2 "" DKIR.F ................... ... ....... ... .. ... ... .. .. -... ............ 9 4% 72: Q30 Would )'OU say tb:tt lbe tnffieat the tiroe ofeh e \lo'U or light7 N ..... ... ,,,_,_,,_,_,, _,,_,,_,,_,,_,,_ _,,,. .... ... .. 69 100% Hcavy ........ ...... ... ..... ... ...... _,,_,,_,,_,,_,,, .... . .. l 13 19% k\fo
PAGE 63

,., Q36 Now) "'>euld like to 3llk a.bm.."l cbc t;(d(Jcnl. W((e )'till (v.U yo'llfdrildf'P)II!iefotm) the bioyclli:st.lbcdri\-et.(lrll N .. -" " ... . .. . .. . .. .... .,., 117 leo% Bkycl b t .. ... ... . ....... ... M .............. _,,,,,,_,,_,,, I 97 8)% l>rlvtr ..... .... .............. .... . .. . M ...... .. .. ........... 2 17 1$% h;stnzc:r ,, ..... .... .. ......... ... ..... ........... ..... .. 3 3 3% 79-: Q37 Was it niOSll)( Clio: fllult? N,.. .... ......... ...... ... ........................ ......... .......... .. 117 100% Yes .. .... ... ..... ...... ..... . .. ... . ... ... ... ... .. . ... 1 28 24% NC ........... ... ....... .................... ....... .. .. ....... .. .... . 2 79 OK.IRF ....................................... ........ .......... ..... 9 10 9% 80: Q38 T o the best ot yow rU v.'llen did this colliPon take piece? PROSE FOR EXACT OATli RANGE: ANY DATE UP tO CUR.R.!N'l' DATB fORMA 'I: YYYYMM.OD N.......... ...... .... ... ....... ......... ............ ....... 116 100% 81: Ql' At what lake pla<:c7 PROBS FOR EXACT '11MB ENTER TlME TliEN PERIOD TillS IS MILITARY TlM, Btrr 'RGULAR TIME. IE: 0915 A.M.OR <)4.3 Not at an interseelion ............... ....................... 3 so 43% DKIR.P .... .. ..................................... ........... 9 6 5% $6: Qn w u i t in t11e middle or:.. b look? N ............................................ ................. 56 1 00% Yes ........... ........... ........ .................. ........... 1 38 t.i8% NQ .............. ......... ......... .. ................. .......... 2 1% 21% OKIRF .................... ................... ........... .......... 9 (i 11% 8 7 : Q" Was t he \'Clliele 103ki11ga tum a n d Uu:a strk the bOctyeli:st? N ..... ....... ... .... ... ... .. ... ... ... ..... ...... M....... .... liS 100% Y c; ....... ....... ... .... .... .... ..... ... ........ .... ... ...... I 30 26% No .... . ............ .. ... .. .......... ..... ...... .......... .. ....... .. 2 75 OfKIRF ................. ................... ...... ................. 9 S 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 855

PAGE 64

.. Did Ole l'f:ll itle tum i n &ont o r the N = .,,.,, _ , ,.,, ........ .. ..... -..... _,,,,,._,, , .. 114 Yc:J --"-.. -.. .... ... .. .......... .. 1 24 21% ........ N .. -002 8 1 71% DK/Rf _ ,,,.,, _, .... . ... ..... . ..... ,_,,_ ,,,.,, _,, 9 9 3% 9(): D i d lbc bic)-clist make len tu.n1 in Ctont N,. -" ... .. , ._,._,_,, ... ., .. ,,.. ... . .. .. 1 1 4 100% Y es I) I 1% N o ... .. _,,, ,. , ,,, _, ,,_,_,, ,,, ,,,,,, ............ ,_l ;1 I()Y, OKIRF ... ............... _ , , , _,, ... .. , .......... 9 to 9% "' Dkl Ole ln1t> tnffte? N , ,.,,_.,, ..... ........... _, ,,,_,_,,_,,,,,,_,,_,,_,, 114 100% Yes .,,_,_ , _, _,,_ ,_,_,,_ _,,_, ............... . I 23 Zen tbc door o{ 11 parlc.ccl ''d!icle and slrike the bl c yclis.7 N = ...................................... ,... .. ............. .. ......... 114 100% .......................................................... ........ 1 3 ,.% N
PAGE 65

99 ; Was dlrca bil:e padl or trail (or bJeyel h u sep1mU:d &om traffte? N .. ....... ....... ..... ,,_.,_ . ...... .. ... ,., . .. .. .. 114 1 00% YH ,._ ...... ....... . ........... _,._ ............................ -1 25 Zi% No .......................... .. ...... .. .......... . .... ... ...... 1 32 7 2 % QS6 DK/Rf .... .......... ... ..... ............. .. ............... 9 1 6% ...::> QS6 100: QSSA Che ble)'dist wlttJ: 111C .l>iko pllll or lane:. ? N .................. .. ....... .............. ................... ,,_,,,_ 25 ICO% Yes ......... . ... u,_,,. ................................. _,.,, ,., I 2() 80% No .... ... _,_,_ .. _,, ... .. -.. -............ .......... ...... 2 20% 0 "" 101: Q .. [);dOle po )oe do & Jq'l(lft (Ill this cra$!1? N .. .. .. ........... .. .. . ............ ... ... .... .... ... ......... I lot 100% Yes ........ ..... .................. ......... ............... .... 1 73 64% No .. .... ,_ .... ...... ... ..... .. .. .. .. ...... ............... .. ... 1 32 Z$% Dl Qej) D awn ....... .. ....... ... ... .. .. ...... ..... .. .. .. .. 2 I 1% -> Q63 .. .. .......... ....... .:: ...... ... ............ .... .... .. .. .... 3 ZO 18% Datl: ... ......... ,_,, ...... -............ .. -....... .......... 4 13 11% OK/RP ................................ ... -.. ...................... 9 J l% 105< Q60 Was the ble)'Clisl 'o\Ur\nr, tdltivc ctolhing? N ............ ................................................... .. .. 16 IUO% Yes ... .. ... ... .. .............. .............. .................. ... .. .. J "'" No .... .. .. .... . .... .. ...... ...... ........... ...... .. ... .. .. ... Z "'" OKIRf .............. ..... .......... ....................... ........ 9 2 S% 106: Q51 Dld the b i eyde have lighiS? N .. ............ ... ............. .......... .. ........... ... .. ... .. 1 6 1 00% Yes ... ....... ......................... .... .............. .. .. .. .' .... .. I 38% Nq ....... ............ .......... ............. ..... ....... ..... ... 1 "'' DKIRJI ........... ....... .. .. ...... ............... -.. ...... 9 "" 107: Q6l Wu t11m: a tty $tn>et N .. _.,_ , .. .. _.,_., ...... .............. .... .. ............. .. ,, tOO% Y(IS .... ....... .... .. ........ .. .... ...... ... ........ ......... .. .. I II .... No ... .... .... ............... ... .. ... . .. .. ....... .. ... ... ... 2 l 1)% ""' 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX B -57

PAGE 66

108: Q6' At the time oftht ine i dcfll. how o ld v..u the bOcyclisl'? N .. . .. ... . ............ .............. .................. .... 114 lOGY. UNDER. 10 .. ...... .... ............................ .. .......... 1 7 6% U)-1$ .. ..... .. ... . ....... .. .. ......................... ....... .... 2 28 16 w 2<1 .................... .......................... .. ........... 3 20 18% 21 w 49 .. .... ......... ... .......... ..... .... ... ....... .. ...... .. 4 4) 38. so. 64 .... .. ..... ... ....................... ... ... .. ...... .... S 6 S% 65+ .............. .. .. ... ... ... ..... ..................... . .......... 6 4 4'1. DKIRP ....... : ..... ................................................ ? 6 S% 109: Oo would )'(Ill $&y their bike ust Skill k'\oe l wu low, Ill' a dvUICed? N...... ,., .. ,.,.,. ,.,,., .. ,..,,. .. ,. .. ,., ,., ., " u " ""''"' JJ4 low ................ ................... .. ............... ......... 13 1 "'' ..................... .............. ..... l 44 3?% .. .... ......... , ., ,.,,,,, .. .. ......... .. .. ......... 3 51 lllh App r0ll.intate1y bow o l d was Ole drivnor the: vehicle? N = .............................. .. .................. .................. 114 16 20. .. ... ........ ........ : ........... ......... .... ........... I 4 21. 49 ... ............. ................ ..................... . ...... 1 57 so 64 ...... ........................... ....................... 3 8 6S., ..................................... .......................... 4 S DKIRF ..... ...... ..... .. ......... .... ............ ... .......... t 40 Ill: Howmll:n ypeople l i\-t in your ltoU$Cbokl? 1 w IS u:ov, ... h SO% ,.,... N .. _................... ........................................ 9<13 100% IU: UANDUNDP.R N ,.. .. ............. ....................... ...... ....... .. .. .. .. .. 963 100% N .... .. .. .. .. . ........ ............ .. ... .. ......... ............. 963 114: 21? N ... .. ... .. . ........... .. .. .. .. .. . ... M........................ 963 JOOY. 11$: ,. ... N ...... .... .. .. .. .,.. .. .. .. .. . ... ... ....... ... .. .... ....... 963 100% 116: 6 SANDOVER N .. _,,_ ....... .............. ............. ......... ... , !>63 Q65 Q66 Q66B Q66C Q66D Q66E H7l Q66TO N = .................... -........................................... 963 118 : Q66CH 'l!ILI!Ji!S!ttlZa'l/a!O!rtwlf,f!.'MII!f.IIJJ!!, N ................ ......... ... ................... M ... .............. .. 0 ICO% 119: How IN!'I)' bSay(lts in wQfking COIIdltloft clo you ha.\OC i n yow RANOE: 0 1S N"' .. .. ... ........ .... ...... _,,_.,, .......... -............... 9& leo% NON:E ..... ... ...... _.,,_,_,_,_,_ .......... ....... 00 400 DKIRF ............................. ..................... .... ... 99 0 OYo 58APPENDIX B 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTR IAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 67

12.0: Q6 8 During tM put 2 4 bolUS, bow maay trip$ b.:!.\'C you by bic:ycle for any Jllll'p:!S<:, lite goi n g to wocJt or school otto on <:m.nd,. 10 Yisit, to ride arour.clt RANGE:0-2$ N-. ... _,, _,._,, ............ ............... ................. ,.... 963 100% 'NONE. ........... ....... ... ...... .. ....... ....... .......... 00 886 !n% DX/Rf ... .. ... ... ...... ................ .. .......... ........ 99 0 0% J.21: Q69 How abou t during tbc pnt se\'Cllthys_ &bact how .ni.any tripllu.\'C you m&dc b) bicyo.k? 2$ N ... ....................... _,.,,_,_,_,_, ....... ........... 886 NONe ..... ........ .................... ,,,_ ...... .......... 00 718 IS% -e. Q82 OKIRF ........ .... ....................... .... ... ............. 99 0 0% =e> Q32 11%: Q10 Woul d you typ0e1lly nuke more lin;. fewer !rips. th11n thai, Of' \1o';1S tlu.t l)'piul? N .... ... .. ............... ................... ....... ...... .. ... .... liS MOC'C trips... ........ ........... ............... ...... ......... J 3J 17% FO:Yo'tr trips .. ...... ... ... .. .. ... ................... .......... 2 27 lS% Typkai .... .............. .. . .. ...... ....... .. .. .. .. ........... .. J 127 69% 123: Q71 Ncw. 1 lil:c to you about lbc nmt rtcul l bicycle uip )'Oil Wlt3t was tho pwposc or lbat lrip? N ........... ........ .. . .. .. .. , _,,, ................... ... ... . ISS 100% WORK. .................... ................... .. ....... .. ... .. Ot !) S% SHOPPfNG-........................ .......................... 02 SCHOOL ..................................... .. .......... .... .. 03 RE!IJGIOUS ...................................... ...... .. .. 04 PSRSONAL BUSiN6SS ... ...... .. .. .. .............. 0$ V1ST A PRJEND OR RELATIVE .... ............ 06 0Tf-15R SOCIAURECREA TIONAL ........... 07 OTHER, Sl'Clf'Y ............. ... .. .. " " ""'"'"' 97 DK/Rf' ..... .. ................ .......... ... ...... ................. 99 114 : 24 I I'Y 0 '" $ ,}% 4 2Y. 124 ti7% 18 II>% Q "' Qn AboutboWI'n3QY m ild 'AU lflalwurtd llip ? PROBE fOR AT LEAST A N RANGE: 1 N=............. .. .. .. ... ....... .................... ............. ... .. 18$ 100% DKfRf .... ................ : ...... .. .............. ............. 9 9 Z 1% 125: Q13 Compaml tiCI other bik e trips )'Ou. wss lb:t.t thO l ypieal distan ce, or was or l0f1$el7 N .......... ... ....... ............. . ...................... .......... ISS 1 00% 1)'J) Ical .......... ..... .. . .. .... .. .. .. . .. . .. ... ...... .. .. .. l 118 69% Sboncr .............. ......... ..... ................... ....... ...... z 4 1 Z2% l.o nt'' ....................... ................................... 3 16 m 126: Q74A >>Cu. nervous 3bout makitlg tl111t lrip b) bike? N "" ............ .. .......... _....... ................... ......... .... 18$ 100'% YES ... .. .. ............................ ... .. ...... ................. 1 2 4 N0 ................. ............ ......... ..... ..... ........... ..... . 2 161 S?% U7: Q 748 Why? PROBS F OR REASONS BEFORE ACCEPTINO DKIRF N .. ..... .. ........... .............. .. .. ..... ... .. .. ....... .... ... U l% DK!Rf ....................... .. .. ............ .. .. .. .......... ... . 9 (l 1>% 121! Q74C Why nor? PROBE FOR ltEA.SONS BEFORE ACCEPTING DK/Rf N ............................ 161 100% R:CORD IUSSPONSB ............ .. .... ................. 1 t$7 !IS% OKIR.f .... ................... .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... .. ..... ... .... 9 4 2% 12-91 Q7SA . F o r jwt th:lt lrip, plnse tell me if llle trip bed mostly, p&rti11Uy, or uot at Oul: !'Wi ow in& eondido n s: WIIS it on a bike pGtb Crom Utffic? N ........ .......... .... ...... ,. .... _ ,....................... .... IS S 100% t<.fostly ............. .. ............................................... l $9 31% Par11any .... .. .. ............................. ....... .. ............. 2 2-4 JJ% NOI3la ll ........... _,_,_,, ...... ................ ........ ... 3 J02 5S% 2002 BIK E AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX B 59

PAGE 68

JJO: Q758 For just chat slip, please tel l tne i t the trip l lld n:ostly, Ot' ;,U lhct foUO'o'ing conditions: Were tlt'e puted urs olona where fO'J rode? N ... .. . .. ., ,.,..,, .. ,. .,, ,,., .. . ...... 18S ).fostly ...... . ....................................... ............... l Z4 13% ... .... ... ........ .. ... . .. ............ .. .. ........... 2 61 33% Noc. at ;,IJ ...... _,_,,,,_,,, ........................... .. .. 3 lllO 54% 131: Q75C For just that trip. plt39C tell me l(thCIIrip 1M mo$(1). portiaUy, or not at all the> followin.g: C'OIIdirinnll: Wen: )\:Ill. in 01( $1fllt: bno wilh niQtOr vehicle trt(J'tG? N. ...................... ... _,.... .... ..... .......... .......... 13$ 100. .. _,,_,,_, ........ ..... .. ... ... ........... .. .. .... 1 69 37% Plu1iti1y . .... .. ...... ... .... ................. ............... 1 Sl 29% Not at a ll ............................... ...................... .... 3 63 34% 132: Q75D FOfjust W1 trip plelso tdl mo It the ttip 11ad tlll)Sily, pllti a lly, or mt "'au the rooowing coaditi0c:1::1: Did yoa mUe wms KrwJ m(4or \'thicle traffic? N . ................................................. ........... .... 185 IQm MosUy .. M ................................................... ....... 1 30 16% hrtillly ................................. ............... :. ......... 2 S9 Not at a ll ...... .. .... .. ....... .... ....... ....... .. ............. 3 611 36% 1: Q15 for j ust lh3t trip. tell n:e if the trip h.:ld mGStl y. JX!rt:Wiy, or nO( a t all Che lb llowing conditions: Wa$ itthloueha rcsldenlia.l llf witb little tnD'Ic? N ........................................... ,_.................... ISS 100% Mo$\ly .... ........................ ................. .. ............... I 118 64'-' Parti ally ............ ........ ............. ... ... .. ....... ,. .. ,. 2 40 22% Not lltt.ll ..... .. ........ .. ....... ... ... .. ... ............... 3 27 IS% Q7SF Forjli$t IbM lrip, pbsc tell me If (II(: trip bad 1'110011)', p1rtiaUy,
PAGE 69

140: Q80 Wbu were ltle lltlit oonditiu., at tho: time, cbytia':tt. da wn. d...sk. ()r duk1 N ........... ... ............ ... ................. ,_,, ...... .. . 1$5 100% .. .. .............. .... ............... . ........ .. ...... ... l 154 83% D,t;wn ..... .. ...... .. ............... ... ...................... .... . 1 3 % Dusk .................. ...... .......... ... .. .. ....... ...... .. .... 3 23 11% ........................................................... .... 4 2 1% 141: Q81 How fiOQIIrtly do }'O'J make t ype of trip? PROBS FOR Pl"o'R WEeK N"' ... .. . ... . .. .. ... .. .......... _... ...... .. ...... ...... ..... .. ... 1$$ S .. tiltltS '1\Uk ....... ........ .. .. .. ........... ...... ... l 29 16% 2-4 dmcs pn 'lloftk ..... ........... .... .... ............ . 1 34 4S% 1 pcr'o\uk ................ ............. ....... ....... ......... 3 3 9 2 1 % 1 till\C$ per rnootb ......................................... 4 11 1 pc'l moe:rth ............................. .... ... ..... .. .......... S 9 5% les;.s I per montll .......................... ............. 6 7 4% t4Z: Qn Countinl: only tl'.e people tte 18 or <11der i o your hoU9tbotd, e1)4)ut how ma'l)' bicyd e lirips 'f.'Cf'C made in tbe pGSt 14 hows by !hem'? 0 25 N'.. .................................................. .. ...... .......... 963 100% N'ONS. ...... ................. : ........................ .. .... 00 at3 92% DXIR.F .............. ...................... ........ ........ ...... 2 0% J4S: Q83 J.klwoboutinthc N ..... .... .. ..... ...... .... .......... ... ...... .. ....... .. 883 1 00% NONE .................................. ... .................... ... oo 811 92% DKIRF .... .. ..... .... .. .. .... .. ..... ................ .... .. ...... ?9 1 oy. 14-': Q84 On avcnsc, ""''Qill d you uy chcir bike tl5Csld l tlevcl W3S l ow, casulfi nllnr.'lf!dillte, <>r &d.'1311d? N"" ............ ..................... ....................... ........... tOO% LoW ......... .. ,., .. , .,, ""''"'" " " M I ll6 33% Cas.\u\llnw:rrnedililc ..... ........ .......................... .. z 41S AdVIIr.ccd, .... ...... ... ,.,, .. ., ,,, .,, ., ., .. : .. .. l 232 24% 14$; Q$5 How about peopl e under 18, boo.\ nnny bike lrlps 1'lt36e in the p u t 2<1 boUJS by tbeni? RANGE: 0 2S N ....... .... ... ...... .. ...... ... ... ........................ .. ........ 3 1 9 IOCI'A NON"E .... ............ .. .... .. ..... ..... 00 22S 7 1 % DiURF ........ ..... ........ ......... ....... .. ...... .. ...... .... gg 4 1 % 146: How 'bQi\11 in the ))Q$1 days? tv.NG8: 0 N"" ....... . ... .. . ..... .. ........ .. ....... .. .. .. .. ............... 22S NONS .............. ,,_ ,,..,. ..... ............. ....... ... .. ..... Oo 176 DJr ror a nermd.? RANGE: 0 25 N '"' .. ,,, , _,,. ... ... .. ...... .. .......... .... ... ... .... .. ...... 963 100% NON' ....... ............. , , .. ...... .. ...... .. ........... 00 544 SGY. OlQ96 DXIRF ,, .... _,,_ ,. , .................................. 9? I 0% 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVE Y FINAL REPORT APPENDIX B 61

PAGE 70

1!01 Q90 On 1M tYCI'3tt. 9\!0\11 bOw l't.t wU )'011.1' 'o'r.lll:in:g round trip ? SPECIFY DIST'ANCJtrN MU .F.S, lll..OCI.'\OW, OET 1'HEM TO E!ST[MA TB N ...... .. .... .... . .. ,,_,,_,,, ....... 171 100% lSI: WORK ....... ... ....... ... .. ..... _,_,,_, ........... .. 01 SHOPPING ............... ................ .. ................... 02 SCHOOL .... ................... ...... ............... ....... 03 RELIGIOUS ....... ..... .. _, ............................. 04 PERSONAL DUSJNESS ....... .... .... . .. . ........ OS VIST A FQ.WI.'D OR R.ELA 1 JV ............ ..... 06 OTHER S OClAURECRBA TIONAL ........... fl1 OlHR, SI'ECIFY . ............. -...... ............... DK/Rf .......... ............ -........................ .... ... 99 151: Wtrr. you um'Ous about mU;ins 11 trip oa fool? N .. ............. ............ : ...... -........... ............. .. YES ....... .. ...... ........ .... .......... ........................ 1 N0 ............................. ...................................... 2 1S3t 6% S% sw. uv. 0% 17:Z 100% 14 8 % I S S 92% Wh)'? PROBE FOR REASONS DEFORE AOCf;P11N(j OK/R.P N.. ................ ......... .... ....................................... 14 tOO% ReCORD RESPONSE ............ ........................ 14 OXIRP ........ .................... ........ .... -...... ........... 9 0 0% 154: Why DOt ? PR OBE FOR REASONS BEFORE ACCEPTING OX/Rf N ................. -...................................... .......... 1$8 RECORD RESPONSE .. ... ... ............. ., ........... 1 1$3 1>7% .: ........................................................... !0) s Jo/ Q'>l Q?2A Q'>>B Q'>IC 155 : Q?JA For ju. 1 1 tllat trip, plta$e ldl me yes. no or don't know lot c&ell of the W19il on side walks o r pedc.strilll p;llhs? N "' ........... .... -....... ....................... ... ... . .. .. .. ...... 172 100% Yn-............ .. .. ................ ........... .............. 1 110 10% No ....... .. .... ....... .... .... ... .......................... ... 2 Sl 3(l% DK.Iltf ................... -....................................... 9 I 1% 156 : Q'>3B For j us t that flip, plcli$C me }':5, M or KIRP ..................... ........... ....... .. ................. 9 o 004 157; Q9lC For jii$C tbu trip, ltll me yes, ao or don't bO'A' o f che fOllowing: Did you wal k alocgddc \'rille! trall'le? N ..... .. .... .... .... ......................... _ ....... ,_, 112' IOCP.!. Y .. ..... .. .... . .. .. ..................... ........................ 96 S6% ......... .............................................. ........... 1 74 43 % Dl
PAGE 71

}110! What type or thittss would m\'0 made you (ul :aer1 N .. ,.,,.,, ........... .. ,, ....... .. ,,.,, .. .. ,,.,,.,,... 173 IMPROVED INFRASntUCTURB ..... . ... . I 21 BETTER. DRIVER BEHAVIOR ...... ....... ... . 2 35 NOntn\0 .... .......... ,,_ ,,.,,.,,_,_,,_,,.,,.,, .. 3 U OTHER. SPEClN .. .................................. ..... 7 21 DXIRF ...... .......... ............. ....... ......................... 9 7 100% 12% 20% 51% 12% 4% 1611 Q?6 Cowttlngonb' d:e 18 or okttr f:n )'OIIf a bo ut hO"P>' trips v.-neo1ade ltltbe past 24 hours by them? RANOE.: 0. 25 N,. ........... ........... .. . ........... .. .. . ... ..... .. . ... ... 963 100% NO.'fE .. _,_,, ... .. ,,_ ... _, .. ,,. ................ .. 00 61 I 63% DKIRP ......... _,, .............. ...... .. . .. ............. 9? 33 3% 161:: How about &like past seven days? RANOE: 0 2S N "' .. ............ ... ....... ........... ,,.,, _,... ...... ... ..... .. 611 OONS.. ........ .................. .. ..... ....... ........... .... 00 437 DKIRF ........ . ................. .... ... ............ .... ..... 99 S 163: 100% ,.,. "' Q97 Haw llbout und 18, baw m11ny \\l:fe maltein the put 2 4 boun by them? RANOE: 0 2S N., ............. ....... .......... ..... ....................... ........ 319 100% NONE ...... ....................... ........ ....... ........... ... 00 199 62'% DJURF ....................................... ... _,, ....... .... 9? 3 ,." HC>"A about tht plSili$\'CII &ys? RANGE: 0 2S N .. ,,.,,., ,.,,,.,,,,,,,.,, 1119 10004 NONE ...... .. ...... _,,., ......... ..... ... .... .. ......... .. 00 163 84% DXIRF .... ...... .. ..... .. ........ .. .. ...... ..... ............ 99 I 1% J'S: QJIIOA Soolclintu PooPte ean tel l1urt when (tom lbri r ru 01 from a bus. just erossluc tltc Wl o r from or 10 the car iQ a parldn; lot. NO( !be tripSc YO'U abonl. about boW ma''Y iliuu did yOu do each or lbe followftle in lbe p a n :i4 flo...-? Cro an whhwt cnflic lie;hl$1 RANGE: 0 -SO N = ........ ,, _,_,, ...... .......... ....... ,.............. ......... 9<13 IW-' NONE .................. ... ............... ............ ... ..... . CO 7l() 76% DKIRF .... .. ... ., .................... ........... .. .. 9? 1 1% 166: Q1008 SUmetimtts peOple can att h urt when .. &om llu:U car from a bw, just t11c stncl \\'aWo:& l"rom or to 1hc I n a parkirtg 104. l h c lrips 1 just a,ke4 youabor.tl. how tmny dmu did you do cacb of lite followine in lhc 1-.Qut$? inlcllttlion. wilb lnlffi: ligbu? RANGE:OSO N ..... .. . .. .. .. .... ........ ... M.............................. 963 100% NON ........................ ................... .... ,_,_,00 749 Wt. DKIRF ......... -.................. ... _ ,. ...... , .... 9? 3 0% 167: Q!OOC Somcdll'IC$ people get bun When Wl\l;lttt from their car or from a bw:, the or ..wll: i r.J from or to tllc cu in ill p;lfkio.s loL No t coiiMiAg the trips J just 11Ued )'OU about, about how man y timu did )'00 do ad! oftbe IOUO'IIoing in (he 24 hours? 3ft "-be:114ht"""' Kd. a nd traMc $1ill ha;d ri.ghL-oWlly RANOE :o.so N ....... ........................ .. ,,.,, .. ,_,,,,............. 963 10004 NONB_, ,,_,, .. , .... ......... _,_,_,,_, ........... OO 900 93% DXIRF ...... ........ , ,_,,_,,_,,, ................... 99 2 0% HIS: QIOOD Somelim.:s people butt wft<:Q walking from their ur o r &om 11 tbt str(IC( fJr walking rrom or co the (#I ift par'kin& lOt. Not coundnz 6!e trips I jiiSt a stm NONE ........ ..... ....... ......... ....... ............... ...... 00 1Sl 18% DKIRP .......... ........................ ................... 99 3 0% 2002 B I KE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX B-63

PAGE 72

Hi?: QJOOE Somcdmes people Cllll tel hurt ben walkiflg !torn thc:ir u r or from a bw::, just c:rossil:l8 lbc sln:e t or walking &om or tQ tile: ur tn pa1ld1'18 101. NOt lliC al king I jliSI asked you 11boot how n'W'IY clme$ did you do each otthe fbltowina I n the Z4 houn?C'ro: tire ia lbc middle or a btock? RAI'KJE: 0 SO N ... ,_ .,,_,,_,,_ _,,_ _,,_,,_,,_,,_ , 963 100% NON ,_,_, ........ ..... .... _,,_ _,,_,,_,,_ , 00 ?II 74% DKIRF _ _,, _,, .......... ... ... -... -. 99 ' 110: 010011 SOmelitnu poopl e "'' ttt burt when '3D: i ng from their eM or from t blls.iust crossin& lhc ()r walkiiiJ f rom or co !tic e3t In a putt ing lol. Noc cowulu: waD:in.g trip$ I just a;lo.i you aboVA, how many times did )'OU do cadi of tbl\ followf.n.{: in tbc paS'! 24 ltoW1? tbroush a pukitl$ lot with RA N1fQtt a.c i!D ihe fluhifla or "don' wttlk" &ignal mcsns you should stOP and ao back to cbc curb. N .......................... .............................. -... -96l True .... ...... ...... ....... .... ....................... .......... I 736 16% ...... ... ....... .. ... .. .. ....... .. ......... ........ .... 1 200 21% OKIRP ... .. .. .................. . ....... ...... .. .. -.......... !> 24 Z% J7S: QJOJ Now, I'll read )'Oil .some lllatcmenl$ R f c(). F-or c adi 011, plec ldl me if in )'OCI personal opinion, Cbc i& true or fall;C. his &es;al co ri:r. bic)'do wlule iniO.Xicoted. N ,_,_,., ....... ................. ,._,,_,,_ ,._,,_ , 963 tOO% Ttue ....... ... . .. ... ............ ......... .. ........ ... .. 1 83 9Y. Fab c ................ .. ,_,.,_,,_ ... ....................... 2 ass !9% DKIRf ........... .. ......... ........................ ............. 9 25 3% 116: Q101P NO\\', rll you. SOc'llC swcaJtmiS abou t safety For each o ne, tell me if it1 )'Oil pcMIDI opiaiM, (Msb.lcmmt i; tnlfl or false. Motorisls a r e req_uircd eo yield tberi$J:It-or.way to pcdtstrius at N ....... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. ........ .. ........ .. _,,_ S6l JOO% 1'n.le ........... ... ...... ... ... -........ ... -... .. .. 90l !14% FAise,_,_,, . ...... ........... ... .. .. .... ........ .,.,l $0 $% DKIRF ........................ _ _,,_ ............ 9 J I 1% 117; QIOl P i mlly.l h.mn. ooup l 6 ofq11enion abollt )'OU. Wh1t is )'OW' age? RANGE: J8 98 YEARS OLD N w _ _,,, .... _ ..... -............. ... -......... 963 I 00% DKIRF _ ,,_, _,,_ .. ......... ........ _,, _,,_ 99 1 7 2'% U-APPENDIX 8 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 73

178; QJOJ Do you h ave a 'r.lli d drivel's lkcme? N., ,._ ................ .... ............ .... ... . .. ...... . ...... -. ?(I) l(IOYo Yes .... .......... .......... ................... .. ... . .. .. ... .... 1 593 !% No .................. ..... ............................................. 2 70 7% DKIRf ............................................................. 9 0 0% ,,., Oo you a.ny pby$k:llliruhations !list mllce i t dlfTICWt to r you b) b'avel lht borne :1.looe .such at u. or a Ullt: -.beekh air, or N "'..... ..................... .................................... ...... 963 lOG% Yc:& ...... ........ .... ...... .... ..... ...... ...... ............... . .. t 67 '1'% No ................ .... ....... ... .. ...... ................. ............ 2 896 93% DK.IRF .. ........................................... ............. ... 9 0 0% 180: Q IO$ Uowrna n y ,'dQelu in 'O rki.'l.S tO!XIi riMrc: there in YOGI' h owc:ho ld? RANGE : 0 15 N.. ....................... . .. .......... .................. ........... 963 100% NON ..... .......... ...................... ...... ............. .... CO 40 4% DKIRP .... ... .... ... ....... .. .... ..... ................ .. ... S9 0 OY. 181: Q106 Ate you a ftdkime m:ldcM otFiorid3, ot a seasonal res::idcna N.. ............. ........ ... ....... ........ ........... ........ ........ 963 FuD.ti.onc: rc:si dc:nl ........ ........ .. ....... ...... ............ I 945 9&% Seuon:lll'l:sidl:nt ........ .. ........ ................ ....... 2 18 2% tSl: QIOT Are )'011 Cfl.l)IO)'< ln a job out:s:ldc )'Out hOme 1\11ldm.. patt-dmc or not t a l l ? N ., ... ..... .... ....... ...... ......... ... .................... ........... 963 1 DO% Fl.lll-clfl) .. .' ................. .... .... . .. .. .. .. ............. ..... 1 473 4SW. -> QJC? 9 % "> Q10!> 4'2% P:ltt-rime .......................................................... 2 8 7 NQ( at a l l ... .................... ......... ..................... 3 403 18:.J: An: )'OU N ,. .. ............ ............... r .. : ............. .... ................ .. Yes ........................ ...... ............ ... ..................... 1 No ........ ...................... ......... ................ ..... ... 2 184: Wl!at is lbe zip COik ll.'hcre )'00 li\'e iD Floricb? 40l 100% 2 39 S!t% 162 40% 2 "" N.. .................................................................... 963 100% DXIRF .... .............. .... ....................... .. ...... 999119 22 2% 185: QJ08 QI09 QIJO Wht is )'OU aM:ual illCome, comb i ning all $OIItl:t:$ 3od all i11 )'Out bot.:Se.l10ld? ENTER WH0L 6 OOLL.o\R AMOUNt N .... ......... ............................................ ........... 963 UederSJS,OOO ............................ ................ .. J 7S S% $1 $ ,000.. ... ............ ..................... ....... 2 I 10 I I% S'2S,OOO $39,9?9 .............................. ............ 3 160 11'% S40,000-$$9.999 ... .. .. .. ... .... ...... ... ................. 4 168 11'% $6(),000 or grtater ....... .................................... 5 155 16% Don't kr.owJRt:IWtd.. ............................. .... ... 9 19S 20% 186: FNAME W11 at is )'Our tim N ............................................. ....... ... ............. 9Sl 1 00. 187 : I,NAME Wlu n I$ your N,. ......... -........ .... .. .... ....................... .... ...... 933 1&8: QUI GENDER 00 NOT ASK N ............... .... .. .... _,,, .................................. ?63 I 00% MALE. ... ................. _ .. .................. ........ 1 398 41% -> 11lANK FEMALE .. ..................... ........... .................. 2 56S 59"1. -> TI-IANX. 2002 B IKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY F INAL REPORT APPENDIX 8 6S

PAGE 74

INTtO )'priMc: Y'O"f time. Th:arJ: you N ........... .... ....... .. ........... ... . .. .. .. ......... .... 0 100% NOTQUALIFIF:.l) . ........ ... ........ .................. NQ 0 0% ->IENO 190; TIIA.I'IIK On bc:llal f of tbc F1oricb Oc:pon:mcnt of1nS))Oflalkln, I \\'alit to lbulk )'OU for all you time and opinions Wd:ty. JU\>t a nice END 8'"Y .... ...................................... .. ... ... .. ....... BZ 0 0% t(> N.O AnSwerins J.bctline .. .. . .. .............. ... ........ JW Call Dttk ... ......... ........ ................................. CR o 0% 0 "'" ->C!l Barrier{SPANlSH ALSO) .......... LB Discocnocc .......... ......................................... DC 0 0% ->END 0 0% ..c> ENO PXI'Compuetr ......... .... .... .... ................... .... .. FX 0 0% o-END ................................... DG 0 0% "'>END fliRt Refusal ... ... . ............ .. ..... ... ... ........... .... RI 0 0% aQo END Rc:fllll .......................................................... RF 0 0% >END hrthl ColfU!k:tc: .... .. ... ......... .... ... .................. PC 0 "' Complete ..... -........ .... ....... .. .. .................... Ct..f ""' 100% =>END 192: NOTES Enltt lilt)' !be N.. ...... ......... .. .............................. .. ...... .. ........ 0 100% 193; N ........................................ .. ,. ......................... .. 66APP ENDIX 8 CB 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 75

APPENDIX C : MAP O F STUDY AREA 2002 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX C -67

PAGE 76

FIGURE 11: MAP OF STuDY AREA Mississippi Alab ama Georg i a Source: Nustats

PAGE 77

NuS tats BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL: EXPLORATION OF COLLISION EXPOSURE IN FLORIDA FINAL REPORT September 2002 Center for Urban Transportation Research 4202 E Fowler Ave, CUT 100 University of South Florida, College of Engineering Tampa, Florida 33620 (813) 974-3120; fax (813) WWY;t.C!!t[,&OQ,Usf,edy and NUStats, Inc. 3006 Bee eaves Rd., Suite A-300. Austin, Texas 78746 (512) 306-9065; tax (512) 306-9077; www.nustats.com CUTR Project Manager: Patricia Turner NuStats Project Manager: ChriS Simek

PAGE 78

DISCLAIMER This report was prepared for the State Safety Office, Department of Transportation, State of Florida in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation andfor Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this report are thos e of the subgrantee, and do not necessarily represent those of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, State Safety Office, U .S. Department of Transportation, or any other agency of the State or Federal Government.

PAGE 79

The project team consisted of: Chris Simek, NuStats Project Manager Patricia A. Turner, CUTR Project Manager Michael B. Greenman, CUTR Graduate Research Assistant The project team would like to recognize the following individuals for providing valuable input and comments during the preparation of this report. Xuhaeo Chu, Center for Urban Transportation Research Christopher Hagelin, Center for Urban Transportation Research Dwight Kingsbury, Florida Department of Transportation Safety Office Pat Pieratte, F l orida Department of Transportation Safety Office II

PAGE 80

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary vii Pedestrian Collision Reports vlll Bicycle Collision Reports viii Pedestrian Trip Generation Estimates and Trip Characteristics ix Bicycles Per Household and Bicycle Trip Genera lio n Estimates ix Perceptions of Trip Makers ix Collision Exposure ix Introduction 1 Background 1 Methods 3 Survey Limitations 4 Profile of Survey Participants 6 Age and Gender 6 Household Size 7 Residence 7 Driver's License and Disabil ity 7 Employment S tatus 7 Household Income 8 Children and Young Adults in Household 8 Bicycles Per Household 9 Motor Vehicles Per Household 10 Survey Respondent Profile 10 Collision Reports 11 Collision Reporting 11 Pedestrian Collisions 12 Bicycle Collisions 18 Trip Generation. Estimates and Trip CharacterisUcs 23 Trip Rates 23 Role of Trip Length 24 Trip Generalion and Correl a tes 24 Profile of Pedestrian Trips 32 Exposure from Incidental Pedestrian Trips 32 Profile of B icycle Trips 33 Iii

PAGE 81

Perceptions of Trip Makers Awareness and Knowledge Conditions that Produce Pereept ion s of banger Trend Analysis Demographics of Interviewed .Respondents Travel of Interviewed Respondents Crashes Reported by Interviewed Respondents Exposure Appendix A: Technical Documentation of Methods Appendix B: 2002 Questionnaire Appendix C: Map of Study Area lv 35 35 35 37 37 37 39 4 0 42 46 67

PAGE 82

LIST OF TABLES AND fiGURES Figure 1: Bicycle and Pedes Irian Crash Injuri e s F lorida, 1996 2001 2 . Figure 2: Blcycle and Pedeslrian Crash F lorida, 1g95-2001 2 Table 1: Short and Long Survey Dislribution by Metropolitan Area 6 Tab l e 2: Age Dlslribution by Gender 7 Tab l e 3: 2002 and 1g95 Household S ize 7 Table 4: 2002 and 1998 Employment Status 8 Table 5: Income Distribution by Metr opolitan Areas 8 T a b le 6: Children Under 161n H ousehold -2002 and 1998 8 Tab l e 7: Young Adults Age 16 t o 20 in Household2002 and 1998 9 Tab le 8: Bicycles per Household -2002 and 1998 9 Tabl e 9: B icycles per Person2002 and 1998 9 Table 10 : Motor Vehicles per Household2002 and 1998 10 Tab le 11: CollisiOn Reporting2002 11 Tab l e 12 : Distribution of Long In terviews-2002 and 1 998 11 Table 13: Report of Pedestria n Crashes Selected for Long Interview -2002 and 1998 12 Figure 3: Reporting Perspective fo; 2002 and 1998 1 2 F i gur!' 4: Pedes trian Crashes Reported to Police -2002 and 1998 13 Figure 5: Age of Pedestrian Involved i n Crashes-2002 and 1998 13 Figure 6 : Age of Driver Involved In Pedestrian Crashes-2002 14 Table 14: Occurrence of Pedestrian Crashes -2002 and 1998 15 Tabla 15: T ype of Inter section and Presence o f Pedeslrian Signals-2002 and 1998 15 Tabla 16: Crosswalk Availability and Use by Pedestrian -2002 and 1998 16 Tab le17: Pedestrian Crash Conditions-2002 and 1998 16 Table 18: Fault Attributed to Pedestrian2002 and 1998 1 6 Tab l e 19: Pre-Crash Conditions-2002 and 1998 17 Table 20:Mo1or Vehicle Activity Surrounding Pedestrian Crash.:. 2002 and 1998 17 T a b le 21: Alcoho l Use by Driver or Pedestrian2002 and 1 998 17 Table 22: Report of Bicycle Crashes Selected for Long I nterview-2002 and 1998 18 Figure 7: Reporting Perspective for Bicycle Crashes-2002 and 1998 18 Figure 8: Bicycle Crashes Reported to Police2002 and 1998 19 Figure 9: Age o f Bicyclist Involved in Crashes -2002 and 1998 19 Figure 10: Age of Driver Involved In Bicycle Crashes-2002 20 Tab l e 23: Occurrence of Bicyc le Crashes-2002 and 1998 21 Tabla 24: Type of Intersection and Location of Bicycle Crash-2002 an d 1998 21 Table 25: Motor Vehicle Activity Surrounding Bicycl e Crash-2002 and 1998 21 v

PAGE 83

Tab l &26: Bicyclist Activity Surrounding Crash-2002 and 1998 22 T able 27: Fault Attributed to B i cyc list-illo2 and 1998 22 Table 28: A l coho l Usage in Bicycle Cres hes2002 and 1998 22 Tabl e 29: Bicycle and Ped&Sttlan Dally Trip Rates 23 Table 30: B i cycle and Pedes trian Trips2002 23 Tab l e 31: Bicyc l e and Pedestrian Dally Trip Rates By Metropo!Han Area-2002 24 Tabl e 32: Trip P urpose and Trip Length2002 24 Table 33: Frequency of Ped&Strlan Trips2002 2 5 Table 34: Dally Pedestrian Trip Rates by A(Je2002 and 1998 25 Table 35: Dai l y Pedestrian Trip Ra tes by Gender2002 and 1998 25 Table 36: Physical Disability and Pedestrian Trip Rates 2002 and 1998 26 Tab l e 37: Dr lvefs License Status and Pedosttlan T rip Rates 2002 and 1998 26 T a ble 38: Daily Pedestrian Trip Rates by Household Size -2002 and 1998 26 Table 39: Dally Pedestrian T rip Rates by Employment Status-2002 and 1 998 27 Table 40: Dally Pedestr ian Trip Rat&S by Househol d Income-2002 and 1998 27 Table 41: Dally Pedestrian Trip Rates by Motor Vehicle Ownershi p -2002 and 1998 28 Table 42: Frequency of Bicycle Trips 2002 28 Tab l e 43: Typicality of Recent B i cycle Tr i ps 2002 28 Tab l e 44: Dai ly B i cyc l e Trip Rates by Age2002 and 1998 2 9 Tab le 45: Daily B i cycle Trip Rates biGender -2002 and 1998 29 Table 46: Physical DlsabiUty and Bicycle Trip Rates 2002 and 1996 29 Table 47: Drivefs License Status and Bicycle Tr i p Rates 2002 an
PAGE 84

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Florida has consistently ranked as one of the worst states In terms of pedestrian and bicycle crashes, Injuries, and fatalities. Over the past 10 years, trends show a slight decline in the pedestrian fatality rate in Florida while the number of bicyclists killed over the same period has remained fairly constant. Although the reasons for these t rends are not clear, one possible explanation may be related to how much people are walking and bicycling. In 1998, the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) conducted a survey to determine the degree to which people were walking and bicycling in Florida 1 The survey generated descriptive information on motor vehicle crashes invo lving bicyclists and pedestrians2 as well as Information to estimate bicycle and pedestrian travel and exposure to collisions (crashes)3 in F lorida. The FOOT Safety Office contracted with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida to conduct a similar survey to better understand the h igh levels of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, Injuries and fatalities Involving motor vehicles that occur in Florida, relative to other states, and the circumstances surrounding these phenomena. CUTR subcontracted with NuStats, Inc, of Austin, T exas, to conduct the survey, process and analyze the data, and prepare a report on the findings. In May June 2002, NuStats, Inc, conducted telepho ne interviews with 963 Florida residents residing in the Tampa, Orlando, Miami, and Jacksonville metropolitan areas to gather data about 'bicycle and pedestrian travel and collision involvement from randomly selected adults, aged 18 years and older. The primary survey objectives were to compare changes in walking and bicycling since 1998 to determine if trip frequencies and trip lengths are increasing or decreasing, and determine if exposure to crashes Is increasing or decreasing and to what degree. To that extent, the survey ins trument and methods were identical to the1998 survey To accomplish the survey objectives, respondents were asked about crash involvement, patterns of travel activity by pedestrian or bicycle modes, perceptions about safety and knowledge regarding pedestrian and bicycle travel, and demographic characteristics of the respondent and household. The interviews in the four surveyed metropolitan areas generated data from 174 respondents reporting on 183 collision events (nine respo nde{lts reported one bicycle and pedestrian crash each, the other 165 respondents had one crash each). Trip generation estimates and trip characteristics were calculated for the four metropolitan areas and analyzed by demographic and socioeconomic factors. Exposure was determined based on bi cycle and pedestrian trip rates and lengths; incidental pedestr ian travel habits; 1Fiorida Department ofT ransportatlon, Office of Policy Planning, Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: Exploration of Collision Exposure in Florida, NuStats International, Austin, Texas, December 1998. 2Respondents were asked ... Have you ever been personally involved in a collision or crash invoMng someone on a bicycle or a pedestrian? This includes your being the pedestrian, the the driver, or a passenger in the veh icle Involved In the collision." Thus, the survey data includes only pedestrian and bicycle crash data Involving motor vehicles. 3oc.ollision" and "crash .. are used interchangeably throughout the report. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-VII

PAGE 85

and perceptions about safety and knowledge of laws regarding bicycle and pedestrian trave l. The survey also provided data to examine trends and maKe comparisons to the 1998 survey results. The following highlights key survey findings. PEDESTRIAN COLliSION REPORTS ;: .! ,. \ .. ;,:, l .; ,_ State traffic crash data genera ted from police crash reports are typically used to collect in formation about bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Often, crash reports are not completed, r esulting in the loss of important informat io n about crash causes and the nature of injuries received in pedestrian crashes. The 2002 survey data show that the number of pedestrian crashes reported to law enforcement agencies by respondents in creased by 15 percentage points, from 69% in 1998 to 84% in 2002 According to the 1998 survey results, adults between the ages of 21 and 49 years aocounted for nearly half (47%) of the pedestrians involved in crashes. The same age group accounted for only 13% of the pedestrians involved in crashes in 2002 (a decrease of 34 percentage points). The decrease was countered by an increase of 11 percentage points in the pedestrian crash involvement of the 16 to 20 year age group (from 15% In 1998 to 26% in 2002) and 12 percentage points in the 65 and older age group (from 4% in 1998 to 16% in 2002}. BICYCLE COLLISION REPORTS The 2002 data indicate that nearly two-thirds (64%) of the respondents reported the bicycle crash to the police. This is a slight increase from over half (54%) of the respondent-reported bicycle crashes in 1998 and a possible explanation may be associated with an increase In crashes involving alcohol. According to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), there were 24,411 alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in 2001, resulting In 20,001 injuries and 1,000 fatalities. The 2002 survey data indicate that 18% of the motorists involved if! the bicycle crashes were reportedly under the influence of alcohol. Because alcohol was involved, this may have prompted those involved to notify law enforcement when, under similar circumstances not involving alcohol, law enforcement may not have been summoned. Interesting ly, the percentage of bicyclists involved In bicycle crashes and reportedly under the influence of alcohol also increased from 2% in 1998 to 6% in 2002. Injury to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis Based on Hospital Emef!1ency Department Data, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2000 5 Florida Crash Facts, Florida Department of Highway Satety and Motor Vehicles: 2001 VIII-EXECUTIVE SU,Il!ARY 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CRASH EXPOSURE SURVEY FINAL REPORT

PAGE 86

PEDESTRIAN TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES AND TRIP CHARACTERISTICS The pedestrian trip rate of surveyed Florida residents increased from 0.91 trips per person per day in 1998 to 1.08 t rips per P\lrson per day in 2002, an increase of 18.7%. The 2002 mean pedestrian trip distance is 1.17 m ilese. BICYCLES PER HOUSEHOlD AND B ICYCLE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES The mean number of bicycles per household increased from 1.28 in 1998 to 1.36 In 2002, while the mean number of b i cycles per person has increased from 0.45 in 1998 to 0.50 I n 2002. Bicycle trip rates have also increased from 0.12 mean trips per person per day in 1998 to 0.17 mean trips per person per day ln.2002. On average, adults between the age of 21 and 49 years are the most active at 0.25 mean trips per pe rson per day. Interestingly Florida residents a r e not only taking more trips, but the length of their trips is increasing. Based on the survey results, the average bicycle trip length in 1998 was slightly over 4 miles. In 2002, the average bicycle trip length increased to 4.53 miles. PERCEPTIONS OF TRIP MAKERS Florida res i dents appear to have a solid understanding of the "basic rules of the ro ad." Nearly nine out often respondents (89%) knew that the statement "irs legal to ride a bicycle while intoxicated" was false. Most of those surveyed knew that bicyclists on the road must stop at stop signs or signals (98%) and tha t motorists are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians at crosswalks (94%). Ninety-two percent of respondents reported that they were not nervous when making their most recent pedestrian trip, while 87% of the respondents reported that they were not nervous when making their most recent b icycl e trip. Respondents that did feel unsafe commented that their feelings could be attributed to speeding or inattentive motorists. Others cited issues rega.rdiog infrastructure, such as heavy traffic, poor lighting at night, and the absence of bicycle paths or sidewalks COWSION EXPOSURE Several estimates presented in this report suggest that exposure to crashes may be inc reas in g for bicyclists and pedestrians In Florida. Perhaps the most convincing of these Comparative valu e for 1998 i s not available. 2002 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SURVEY FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -IX


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00449
2 USFLDC DOI
0 245
[An un-cataloged item [C01-00449] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].]
500
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF]
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.449