Cycling is good for the environment, healthy and affordable [1 ]. However, these benefits are offset by the risk of being involved in traffic crashes [1], with infrastructure characteristics like tram tracks or parked cars increasing aforementioned risk [2, 3]. Bicycle crashes with tram tracks can occur when cyclists turn onto streets with tram tracks or cross them for other reasons, such as avoiding parked cars on the side (oftentimes related to sudden maneuvers to avoid collisions with the door of a parked car being opened) [4]. Such collisions, referred to as dooring crashes, account for a significant proportion of bicycle crashes [3]. Nevertheless, the majority of cyclists ride in the so-called dooring zone, which is the area next to parked cars where dooring crashes can occur. If the cyclists' lateral distance to parked cars is large enough, the risk of being involved in a dooring crash can be eliminated [2]. Cyclists' position on the road can be influenced by descriptive norms which reflect a typical or normal behavior: If many other cyclists ride within the dooring zone, then the descriptive norm in this situation is to ride in the dooring zone [5]. People may also ride in the dooring zone because they are convinced that important people around them would approve of this behavior (injunctive norm), e.g. because it is communicated verbally. Apart from influencing cyclists' choice of position through norms, installing bicycle lanes with buffer zones to keep cyclists out of the dooring zone would be a solution. However, particularly in urban areas, a lack of space can make this impossible. Additionally, if tram tracks ran on the road, it is not always practical to mark bicycle lanes or protective lanes, especially when there is little space to the right of the outer tram track. In connection with frequent bicycle crashes roads with tram tracks, it is discussed whether cyclists might particularly often ride within the dooring zone there as not to have to cross the track.s [3, 6]. In those cases where marking of bicycle lanes or protective lan.es is not feasible due to width or tram track constraints, bicycle pictograms, so-called sharrows, can be marked in the middle of the lane as a measure aimed at encouraging cyclists to choose a position outside of the dooring rone and to increase their perceived safety, another factor influencing the positional choice [2]. To date, a joint experimental variation of the presence of tram tracks, parked cars, and sharrows with the aim of investigating cyclists' position on the road and their feeling of safety has not yet t.aken place. Two online studies were carried out to address this research gap, with cyclists being asked to indicate their perceived safety and their preferred position on the road based on images of a traffic situation in which the presence of tram tracks, parked cars and sharrows was varied. [From: Introduction]

As bicycle transportation has increased, especially among commuters, so have the types of bicycle infrastructure facilities increased. This report focuses on the application of several of these innovative bicycle infrastructure treatments in three different scenarios: shared-lane facilities, bicycle-specific facilities, and high-conflict area treatments. The focus treatments include the sharrow, Sharrow Bicycle Priority Lane, Green Bicycle Priority Lane, Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign, green bike lane, bike-box, green lane in a conflict area, and elephant's footprint markings. The goal of this report is to gather how well bicyclists understand their meaning, how they would use each, and which treatments are most preferred among bicyclists. Data for this study was gathered in the form of an online survey administered to 1000 bicyclists of varying levels and purposes from different regions of the country. The survey gathers general rider characteristics, asks how each bicyclist would use each treatment in different traffic speed and volume scenarios, and finally each respondent rates each of the treatments in order of preference. Using the survey results, the effectiveness of each treatment is analyzed in detail by different population segments of those surveyed. Bicyclist riding characteristics and route choice factors are also examined in detail to better understand the sampled population of riders. The results are discussed and conclusions to the effectiveness of each treatment are made.