Bicycles/Pedestrians

Safety Toolbox: Problem identification

Process and considerations

While the bulk of this Toolbox focuses on the technical components of conducting collision analysis, developing countermeasures and other aspects of pedestrian and bicycle planning and engineering, this section discusses process options for this analysis. At the heart of this discussion is who should be involved in the analysis.

Safety, and particularly that of the most vulnerable road users – pedestrians and bicyclists, is a topic of interest to a varied group of stakeholders including but not limited to: staff from Public Works, Planning, Police, Fire, the School District(s); members of pedestrian and/or bicycle advisory groups; local and/or regional advocacy groups; disability advocate groups; elected officials; members of boards and commissions; public health agencies; and national safety organizations such as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The more people/groups/interests that are involved in the process, the more complex and time-consuming the analysis will be, not necessarily because it will expand the scope of the technical analysis, but because of the added time to organize meetings with large groups and seek appropriate input from stakeholder groups. The benefits of involving others in this discussion and analysis of collisions are:

Increased expertise on engineering and non-engineering issues and good information exchange

Advocates, for example, often have knowledge about problem locations
Police and Fire have knowledge about safety concern areas as well as current practices on education and enforcement practices
School district staff have knowledge of school-area concerns, school practices with respect to curriculums for pedestrian and bicycle safety, efforts to improve pedestrian and bicycle travel routes to schools, school-area bicycle support facilities (bike racks, lockers, etc.) and programs to encourage or discourage walk and bicycle access to school
Public Safety staff have knowledge of emergency room trips related to pedestrian and bicycle travel

It’s not what you did, it’s how you did it – While staff may be fully qualified to conduct collision analysis independent of other groups, if recommendations are likely to affect other agencies/groups, it is often wise to include them in the process to ease implementation. This will also lead to improved relationships and recommendations that are more specific and focused.
As an industry, traffic engineers and transportation planners have done a poor job of publicizing our successes. A likely product of collision analysis is effective and short-term improvements, something customers will appreciate. This may present an ideal opportunity to build the credibility of your organization.

There are a wide range of meeting processes that could be effective in involving a group of stakeholders. Following is one option: the three meeting process. The three meeting process is one where you include stakeholders from start to finish. The first meeting gathers early input of the scope of work and expected outcome, the second is a working meeting to present results and derive solutions and the third confirms final recommendations.

Meeting 1: Kick-Off

Input: introductions, roles and responsbilities, project work scope, preliminary discussion of issues
Output: refined work scope, communication channels, direction to proceed on technical analysis

Meeting 2: Group workshop

Input: present technical analysis, roundtable discussion, preliminary conclusions
Output: confirm/amend technical analysis (ready for publication), schematic/conceptual solutions, confirmation of project direction

Meeting 3: Conclusions

Input: present final conclusions and recommendations, develop next steps
Output: confirm conclusions and recommendations (ready for publication), action items for next steps