Literature Review - bicycle safety issue
Introduction
Scope and purpose of clinical practice guidelines
Stakeholder involvement
Rigor of development
Recommendations and application
Conclusion
Literature Review – bicycle safety issue
Introduction
Safe use of our roads is the responsibility of everyone. Road users are categorized mainly as pedestrians, motor vehicle and bi-cycle users. In 2013, 7 43 cyclists were killed on the road during collisions with motor vehicles. Recent statistics show where there has been a significant decline in both walking and cycling, which is responsible for an alarming increase in diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. Subsequently, increased frequency in heart attacks has led many to a premature death due to inactivity (Pedestrian and bicycle information center, 2015).
More importantly, bicycle safety is a public health issue. In 1993 statistical evidence exists showing where an estimated 68,000 cyclist were injured on our roads. This amount declined in 2003 to an estimated 41,000 then slowly increased in 2013 to 48,000. Comparatively, there has been a steady increase in fatalities since 2011 to the rate of 8.9%. Meanwhile there is a marked increase in deaths associated with inadequate diet and inactivity. This occurs at the rate of approximately 15.2% (65,000). When bicycle fatalities and injuries are compared to those of pedestrian’s road users, cyclists have a higher incidence than other road users. The question is then asked is ti safer to walk than ride on our roads? (Pedestrian and bicycle information center, 2015).
This literature review is intended to discuss scope and purpose of the bicycle safety issue clinical practice guidelines; the stakeholder involvement, rigor of its development and offer recommendations for application.
Scope and purpose of clinical practice guidelines
Based on the foregoing bicycle fatalities and road injuries the ‘Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists” came into beng. The guideline was created due to sponsorship of the United States Department of Transportation. Its purpose is to foster information exchange. Therefore, the United States Government takes responsibility for all the information disseminated and used thereafter. This is merely a guideline and is not established as a standard, specification, or regulation with any legal implication (Federal Highway Administration , 2015).
The precise scope and purpose of the Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists, relates to a cyclist-specific RSA guide. Importantly, the guideline offers RSA team members’ safety features to be considered when executing a cyclist-specific RSA. Attempts have been made by authors to design a thorough guide for experts performing RSAs. It was noted that situation vary geographically and specific concerns can arise based on these differences. As such, the guidelines are expected to offer enough information for experts to use their judgment when conducting RSAs. It was however suggested that individual agencies adapt their own lists from the guidelines, which may be more applicable to their unique situation (Federal Highway Administration, 2015).
Specific reasons given for the scope and development attitude of the Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists is enhancing transportation agencies and RSA teams’ understanding of cyclists’ safety in the transportation system if they have to carry out an RSA. These Guidelines emphasize taking into account the cycling environment using a “behind the handlebars” conceptual framework. Consequently, this guideline document is an extension of one previously incorporated in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines and published by the Federal Highway Administration ( Federal Highway Administration, 2015)
)
Stakeholder involvement
Stakeholder involvement included a The Task Manager, Richard Schaffer (FHWA Office of Safety), who was responsible for designing the report/ guidelines. Subcontractors were the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. A project team was created to accomplish this task of designing the clinical guidelines. However, other stakeholders that were selected to facilitate the efficient and professional production included a technical group with skills, which were essential to successful completion of the project. These persons were ‘ Craig Allred, Rebecca Crowe, Yon Lambert, Lauren Marchetti, Richard Moeur, Gabe Rousseau, Michael Sanders, Cara Seiderman, Tom Trowbridge, and Mighk Wilson.’ (Federal Highway Administration, 2015).
Essential contributors specifically related to the designing of safety protocols were delivered by Daniel Lovas, Kevin Moriarty, Jakob Helmboldt, Billy Hattaway, Matthew Carmody, Janet Jenkins, and Noah Bernstein. Dan Nabors, William DeSantis, Libby Thomas, Michael Sawyer, developed the images. Matthew Carmody, and Jonathan Maus were responsible for the graphic designs along with Jorge Quinones (Federal Highway Administration, 2015).
Rigor of development
The document contains distinct solid chapters. Chapter one offered a comprehensive introduction to safety issues affecting cyclists sensitizing law enforcement as well as other roads users to the safety difficulties that exist currently. The chapter discusses cycling in United States of America; explains the purpose and scope of the guideline development; ste.s how the guidelines was organized concluding with a glossary of terms. Chapter two continues with some information pertaining to bicycle safety. It encompassed including an extensive section on contributory factors retained to crashes (Federal Highway Administration, 2015).
Chapter three explains cyclists’ responsibility as road users and how RSAs are to evaluate them during the audit process. Further an explanation into who are qualified to conduct audits was clarified, when these audits are to be conducted and the challenges RSAs are to anticipate during an audit. Chapter four moves the reader forwards into understanding the responsibility of bicycle users, Precise information pertaining to the significance and organization of the prompt was detailed; when and how to use the device was explained(Federal Highway Administration, 2015). .
Specific features extending knowledge regarding presence and availability of resources applicable to executing the prompt were discussed. Human factor and behavior was highlighted as having an impact on how effective the RSA could be in conducting the process. Ultimately, a master prompt list was produced defining terms such as street, path, structures, intersections, crossings, interchanges, transitions and transit (Federal Highway Administration, 2015).
In analyzing the rigor of this document it can be concluded that the authors took cyclists into consideration empathizing with their plight being bypassed and knocked over on the road.
They confirmed that cyclists were legitimate many other road even though they were not asked to have a license. Consequently, they deserve the respect as any users. Federal Transportation services consider cyclists as integral to the transportation system. This awareness forged USDOT to make a statement on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on our roads. They seem to be the most vulnerable. The recommendations were released in March, 2010 and greatly influenced the design of these clinical guidelines. Some recommendations included building strong networks whereby planning and funding could be used to enhance to cyclists road safety across the nation (United States Department of Transportation , 2010).
These policies offer opportunities encouraging transportation agencies to take initiative of going beyond offering minimum resources to the public into conceiving safer more convenient sensitive facilities. A precise statement related that the USDOT understands safety, convenience in walking and bicycling facilities vary with geographic locations. However, rural communities ought to be given special attention. These areas are not as dense as urban communities. Regardless of the differences adequate cycling facilities must be relevant to specific geographic as well as cultural conditions. Life matters. As such, transportation systems when creating guidelines must address these issues. This guideline certainly did in its thoroughness in designing the principles
Recommendations and application
These guidelines ought to be accessible to every road user. There are many characteristics affecting cyclist safety on the roads today and always. They encompass space, length of cycle, stability/balance, speed, deceleration, and stopping. Most importantly, cyclists are vulnerable on the roads. They appear to be disrespected on our roads. However, people of all ages ride bicycles on the roads, some for fun and others it is their only means of transportation getting to and from short distances. In some states there are special lanes for cyclists, but they are still not safe because motorists often enter these lanes and cyclists get injuries. Therefore, road sensitizing regarding cyclist should be mandatory for motorist receiving their drivers’ license.
Conclusion
This document outlines a summary of the bicycle road safety audit guidelines and prompt lists. It was acknowledge that many cyclists die on our roads and these deaths could be avoided if there were some safety audit guidelines to enhance the RSA process. Since road deaths is a public health issue this clinical guideline was considered relevant to health and safety
References
Federal Highway Administration (2015). Safety. Retrieved 17th June, 2015 from
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/
Pedestrian and bicycle information center (2015). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Statistics.
Retrieved on June, 16th, 2015 from http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
United States Department of Transportation (2010). Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. Retrieved on June 18th,2015 from http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/bicycle-ped.html.
