This project determined perceived bicycle safety among Minnesotans and compared differences in perceived safety by regional residence and cycling participation.

1. Leading, preparing & supporting
the tourism industry
for success & sustainability
A collaboration of the University of Minnesota Extension &
College of Food, Agricultural & Natural Resource Sciences
Perceived Bicycle Safety in Minnesota
Rebecca Brown, MURP, Tian Guo, MS, & Ingrid Schneider, PhD
Introduction & Purpose
A bike renaissance may be occurring1. Increased biking is of interest for a
number of reasons. Biking has physical health benefits, mental health benefits
& is a major promotion for Minnesota tourism in 2012. Between 2000 and
2009, participation in bicycle commuting in Minnesota increased 88%2.
Perceived safety can be a major factor on the decision to bicycle, whether for
function or fun3. Constraints to leisure and transportation, like perceived safety,
are important to understand and manage to ensure the potential benefits are
maximized. Perceived safety can have an impact on physical activity as people
are more likely to walk or bike if they perceive safety from traffic4. Finally, high
perceived safety is important for communities interested in promoting their
area as a biking tourism destination.
However, the majority of biking research is urban in focus with few regional
comparisons available. As such, the purpose of this project was to determine
perceived bicycle safety among Minnesotans and compare differences in
perceived safety by regional residence and cycling participation.
Methods
Sample: A representative sample of 7,488 MN residents
Instrument: 12 page mail questionnaire, included questions on
perceived biking safety, residence
Analysis: Descriptive, correlation, & comparative with a
perceived bicycle safety scale ( = 0.76)
Results: Perceived Safety
Overall Perceived Bicycle Safety:
Respondents throughout Minnesota considered their community somewhat
safe to bicycle. Average perceived bicycle safety was 4.77 on a 7 point scale
(Table 1).
Regional Differences
Respondents in the South perceived higher bicycling safety than Metro, Central,
and Northeast regional residents. Southern respondents perceived greater
safety on 4 of the 5 safety items:
•• Community bike safety: South > Metro & Northeast
•• Traffic & speed: South > Metro & Central
•• Roadway design: South > Central & Northeast
•• Amount of traffic: South > Central & Northeast
Discussion
Overall Safety & Regional Differences: While Minnesotans rate their
communities as somewhat safe for cycling, there is room to improve and
increase perceived safety. Given the lower scores for traffic & design, greater
attention to these areas in public campaigns for biking and actual
development may be warranted. The concern with traffic mirrors some other
research, although traffic’’s impact on biking participation is inconsistent,
Overall and among non-cyclists, Southern MN residents rated their
communities as safer for biking than did other Minnesotans. Further research
regarding the reasons for this greater perceived safety are of interest. Despite
the bicycle infrastructure and bicycling opportunities in the Metro region, the
region was not perceived as significantly more safe for bicycling than the other
regions. In a related vein, findings from a Center of Transportation Studies
report indicated no difference in participation in non-motorized transportation
after investments in bicycle infrastructure in the Twin Cities Metro Region5.
Cyclists vs. Non-Cyclists: Perceived safety between cyclists and non-
cyclists differed only in the Metro region. Given the higher traffic densities in
the Metro, this may not be surprising. Campaigns to encourage biking should
consider these safety concerns. Perceived safety increases with increased
biking6, so as biking participation increases in the Metro, these perceptions
may change. Future research should consider the type and intensity of biking
to further differentiate these perceptions.
Figure 1: Perceived bicycle safety between cyclists and non-cyclists in Minnesota regions.
*Significant at p<.05
Safety items Mean SD
How safe is your community for bicyclists? 5.11 1.59
It is safe to ride a bike, considering traffic and speeds 4.71 1.78
Buses drive too fast in my area & make it unsafe for bikers &
pedestrians*
4.67 1.59
It is safe to ride a bike considering the design of the roadway (e.g.
shoulder width, edge lines, rumble strips)
4.63 1.79
There is so much traffic along nearby streets that it makes it difficult
or unpleasant to bike*
4.62 1.9
Scale ( = 0.76) 4.77 1.23
Differences by participation: Cyclists vs. Non-Cyclists
Two regional differences emerged when examining perceived safety by biking
participation: 1) cyclists in the Metro region perceived significantly greater
safety than non-cyclists (Figure 1), and 2) non-cyclists from the South region
rated bicycle safety higher than non-cyclists from Metro, Central, and
Northeast regions.
Table 1: Mean response scores and standard deviations for perceived safety items
References
1Pucher, J., Buehler, R., & Seinen, M. (2011). Bicycling renaissance in North America? an update and re-
appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transportation Research Part A, 45, 451-475.
2Swanson, K. (2012). Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2012 Benchmarking Report. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Biking & Walking.
3Heinen, E., Maat, K., & Wee, B. (2010). Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the literature. Transport Reviews,
30(1), 59-96.
4Jacobsen, P. L., Racioppi, F., & Rutter, H. (2009). Who owns the roads? How motorised traffic discourages
walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention, 15(6), 369-373.
5Gotschi, T., Krizek, K. J., McGinnis, L., Lucke, J., & Barbeau, J. (2011). Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot
Program Evaluation Study, Phase 2. Minneapolis: Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota.
6Xing, Y., Handy, S. L., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2010). Factors associated with proportions and miles of bicycling for
transportation and recreation in six small US cities. Transportation Research Part D, 15(2), 73-81.
Results: Demographics
Response Rate: 45% response rate (3,308); 53.2% from Twin Cites
Age range: 18-98 years
Cycling participation: 45% report bicycling outside in last 12 months
Limitations: The Twin Cities Metro area is treated as a homogenous study
region yet it represents a spectrum of environments, from highly urbanized
areas to suburban neighborhoods and rural communities. Future research can
examine differences within the metro region and perhaps among differing
levels of urbanization. The number of responses received from the survey did
not allow comparisons between bicycle commuters and recreation bicyclists.
Differentiating by cycling frequency & tourist status may be of interest as well.
EMT EMT
EMT EMT
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5
Metro* Central NE NW South
Mean Perceived
Safety Scale
Region
Cyclists
Non-cyclists
Metro cyclists perceived significantly greater safety than non-cyclists on
3 of the 5 safety items:
•• Bus speed: metro cyclist > non cyclist
•• Roadway design: metro cyclist > non cyclist
•• Amount of traffic: metro cyclist > non cyclist
Note: 7 = greater safety; * = items reverse coded
Thanks to MnDOT for project support!