NYC Bike Routes & Accidents Involving Cyclists
Introduction
As many, I grew up riding bicycles for transportation, as a mean of relaxation or just for exercise. When there’s a nice day out I love to take my bike and go for a relaxing ride, discovering places and enjoying what nature has to offer.
We know of the rules for safety (bike paths, helmets, brakes, speed, lights, reflectors, air pressure and so on). NYC has adopted a wise decision to create and mark bicycle routes across the city as a mean to create a safety corridor for cyclists while improving transportation and traffic conditions.
Study
For this project, I will perform a study analysis for these defined bicycle routes and the NYC accidents database in which a cyclist was involved.
Goal
The goal is to identify how much safety has increased for cyclists since bicycle friendly routes were implemented and possible causes of why and where bicycle accidents happens the most.
Datasets
I will be using real data available as follows:
Open Data NYC Project (rich environment of diverse datasets).
Open Data NYC: https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/
– Bike Routes: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Transportation/Bike-Routes/7vsa-caz7
– NYC Accidents: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYC-accidents-heat-map/ehqi-g294
Since these data sets are getting updated frequently, I will be working with their latest reports.
Overview
For this project first I will start by looking and summarizing the given reports and then stripe them down to possible causes and locations in order to identify patterns and possible causes.
This study will be perform in R Studio and many if not all functions and processes will be hidden; only results will be provided.
Gathering data
NYC Bicycle Routes
Obtaining a Bicycle Map
In order to obtain a bicycle map, we can visit the NYC DOT and download a friendly NYC bike friendly map.
This map offers valuable information about paths, NYC Biking Laws, Tips for the Ride, CyclEyes, Bikes on Transit with Subway Tips, Riding and Locking Tips.
Link to download a bicycle map: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bikemap-2017.pdf
Link to download a summary listing of NYC Biking laws: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/biketips.shtml
For this project I will be using the following links in which electronic data related to bicycle routes are provided.
Url: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Transportation/Bike-Routes/7vsa-caz7
API: https://dev.socrata.com/foundry/data.cityofnewyork.us/cc5c-sm6z
NYC Accidents Report
For this section of the project, I will be using details provided by the Motor Vehicle Collisions in New York City provided by the Police Department (NYPD). The latest update on this database was on May 11, 2017.
Obtaining Bicycle Accidents Reports
For this section of the project, I will be using the following open data links.
Url: https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYC-accidents-heat-map/ehqi-g294
API: https://dev.socrata.com/foundry/data.cityofnewyork.us/qiz3-axqb
Geocoding
One of the ideas of this project is to interpolate datasets and find out if extra information is available by combining results given by Geocoding services.
The Google Maps Geocoding API is a service that provides geocoding and reverse geocoding of addresses, this service has a limitation of 2500 daily queries and it might not be of much value in the incipient part of the project but as an extended part of it.
API: https://developers.google.com/maps/
For this project I will be employing provided mechanisms in order to plot a Google Map from R and overlay it with shapes and markers. Also I will retrieve Google Maps info trough APIs, including places, directions, roads, distances, geocoding, elevation and timezone.
MapQuest
With the previous limitation provided by Google of 2500 daily queries, I have then looked into alternatives; that is MapQuest offers extra data that Google does Not provide but also an increase number of 15000 queries a month.
If it is true 15000 queries a month is not a much compared to Google, this 15000 can be performed at one time instead of breaking down into smaller batches.
API: https://developer.mapquest.com/documentation/geocoding-api/reverse/get/
A remarkable programming part about MapQuest is that they offer results as JSON and XML, I have programmed the two options in order to obtain information but I have decided for JSON; due to XML does not provide some information that JSON does such as the speed limit for example.
Physical Addresses
If it is true that our given data has some physical addresses, some present missing entries or typos that could generate errors; this can be easily “fix” by interpolating given coordinates from accidents and routes into reverse geocoding services such as Google or MapQuest as described above in order to obtain more accurate information.
MariaDB
My database server of choice is MariaDB, once downloaded the data I will store the information in it and retrieve it when needed.
By the numbers
Dates
First reported accident involving a cyclist: 2012-07-01.
Last reported accident involving a cyclist: 2017-05-13.
Total number of days passed since first and last reported accident involving a cyclist: 1777.
Total number of years passed since first and last reported accident involving a cyclist: 5.
Amount of data collected
Total number of records referring to accidents involving cyclists in NYC: 20308.
Total number of records referring to bike routes: 25209.
Reported accidents table
- Grand total number of injuries due to accidents involving cyclists in NYC: 21474.
Yearly summary
Year | No. pedestrians injuried | No. cyclist injuried | Percentage | Monthly Average | Daily Average | Probability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | 18 | 1306 | 6.08 % | 109 | 4 | 1 every 6 hours |
2016 | 45 | 5607 | 26.11 % | 467 | 15 | 1 every 2 hours |
2015 | 5 | 4280 | 19.93 % | 357 | 12 | 1 every 2 hours |
2014 | 6 | 3997 | 18.61 % | 333 | 11 | 1 every 2 hours |
2013 | 5 | 4074 | 18.97 % | 340 | 11 | 1 every 2 hours |
2012 | 6 | 2210 | 10.29 % | 184 | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Observed patterns:
If we analyze the above table, we can quickly figure out that at the current rate of accidents involving cyclists in NYC for this year will be as follows:
- Forecasted number of accidents involving cyclists in NYC for the current year.
Year | Current.Reported | Curent.Daily.Avg | Forecasted.Month.Avg | Forecasted.Yearly.Avg | Previous.Year | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | 1306 | 10 | 300 | 3650 | 5607 | -1957 |
If you noticed, I have described the results as “poorly”; that is due to lack of rigor with the current evaluated data, and many adjustments need to be done, but as an initial point of reference will be a “good” starting point.
From Table 1.1 we can have high hopes that this year’s accident rate will be lower but with the spike of accidents observed during last year alone, it will be difficult to predict.
- An interesting observation is that 1 accident involving a cyclist in NYC has been reported at an average rate of approximately every two hours for the majority of the recorded years.
Monthly summary
In this section, I have listed our given data into monthly results, with hopes of finding some patterns; one of these patterns could be related to the season of the year for example.
Month | No. pedestrians injuried | No. cyclist injuried | Percentage | Daily Average | Probability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May, 2017 | 3 | 170 | 0.79 % | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Apr, 2017 | 4 | 366 | 1.7 % | 12 | 1 every 2 hours |
Mar, 2017 | 0 | 234 | 1.09 % | 8 | 1 every 3 hours |
Feb, 2017 | 6 | 228 | 1.06 % | 8 | 1 every 3 hours |
Jan, 2017 | 5 | 308 | 1.43 % | 10 | 1 every 2 hours |
Dec, 2016 | 0 | 260 | 1.21 % | 9 | 1 every 3 hours |
Nov, 2016 | 1 | 418 | 1.95 % | 14 | 1 every 2 hours |
Oct, 2016 | 9 | 540 | 2.51 % | 18 | 1 every 1 hours |
Sep, 2016 | 9 | 780 | 3.63 % | 26 | 1 every 1 hours |
Aug, 2016 | 19 | 1234 | 5.75 % | 41 | 1 every 1 hours |
Jul, 2016 | 2 | 494 | 2.3 % | 16 | 1 every 2 hours |
Jun, 2016 | 1 | 465 | 2.17 % | 16 | 1 every 2 hours |
May, 2016 | 0 | 422 | 1.97 % | 14 | 1 every 2 hours |
Apr, 2016 | 0 | 350 | 1.63 % | 12 | 1 every 2 hours |
Mar, 2016 | 3 | 312 | 1.45 % | 10 | 1 every 2 hours |
Feb, 2016 | 1 | 166 | 0.77 % | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Jan, 2016 | 0 | 166 | 0.77 % | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Dec, 2015 | 0 | 292 | 1.36 % | 10 | 1 every 2 hours |
Nov, 2015 | 1 | 343 | 1.6 % | 11 | 1 every 2 hours |
Oct, 2015 | 0 | 408 | 1.9 % | 14 | 1 every 2 hours |
Sep, 2015 | 0 | 517 | 2.41 % | 17 | 1 every 1 hours |
Aug, 2015 | 2 | 569 | 2.65 % | 19 | 1 every 1 hours |
Jul, 2015 | 0 | 574 | 2.67 % | 19 | 1 every 1 hours |
Jun, 2015 | 1 | 441 | 2.05 % | 15 | 1 every 2 hours |
May, 2015 | 1 | 474 | 2.21 % | 16 | 1 every 2 hours |
Apr, 2015 | 0 | 304 | 1.42 % | 10 | 1 every 2 hours |
Mar, 2015 | 0 | 161 | 0.75 % | 5 | 1 every 5 hours |
Feb, 2015 | 0 | 82 | 0.38 % | 3 | 1 every 8 hours |
Jan, 2015 | 0 | 115 | 0.54 % | 4 | 1 every 6 hours |
Dec, 2014 | 0 | 186 | 0.87 % | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Nov, 2014 | 1 | 280 | 1.3 % | 9 | 1 every 3 hours |
Oct, 2014 | 1 | 430 | 2 % | 14 | 1 every 2 hours |
Sep, 2014 | 1 | 488 | 2.27 % | 16 | 1 every 2 hours |
Aug, 2014 | 0 | 501 | 2.33 % | 17 | 1 every 1 hours |
Jul, 2014 | 1 | 538 | 2.51 % | 18 | 1 every 1 hours |
Jun, 2014 | 1 | 473 | 2.2 % | 16 | 1 every 2 hours |
May, 2014 | 1 | 388 | 1.81 % | 13 | 1 every 2 hours |
Apr, 2014 | 0 | 309 | 1.44 % | 10 | 1 every 2 hours |
Mar, 2014 | 0 | 190 | 0.88 % | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Feb, 2014 | 0 | 94 | 0.44 % | 3 | 1 every 8 hours |
Jan, 2014 | 0 | 120 | 0.56 % | 4 | 1 every 6 hours |
Dec, 2013 | 1 | 175 | 0.81 % | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Nov, 2013 | 1 | 281 | 1.31 % | 9 | 1 every 3 hours |
Oct, 2013 | 0 | 429 | 2 % | 14 | 1 every 2 hours |
Sep, 2013 | 2 | 479 | 2.23 % | 16 | 1 every 2 hours |
Aug, 2013 | 0 | 524 | 2.44 % | 17 | 1 every 1 hours |
Jul, 2013 | 0 | 470 | 2.19 % | 16 | 1 every 2 hours |
Jun, 2013 | 0 | 508 | 2.37 % | 17 | 1 every 1 hours |
May, 2013 | 0 | 400 | 1.86 % | 13 | 1 every 2 hours |
Apr, 2013 | 0 | 290 | 1.35 % | 10 | 1 every 2 hours |
Mar, 2013 | 0 | 195 | 0.91 % | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Feb, 2013 | 0 | 131 | 0.61 % | 4 | 1 every 6 hours |
Jan, 2013 | 1 | 192 | 0.89 % | 6 | 1 every 4 hours |
Dec, 2012 | 0 | 212 | 0.99 % | 7 | 1 every 3 hours |
Nov, 2012 | 0 | 276 | 1.29 % | 9 | 1 every 3 hours |
Oct, 2012 | 0 | 332 | 1.55 % | 11 | 1 every 2 hours |
Sep, 2012 | 0 | 433 | 2.02 % | 14 | 1 every 2 hours |
Aug, 2012 | 1 | 507 | 2.36 % | 17 | 1 every 1 hours |
Jul, 2012 | 5 | 450 | 2.1 % | 15 | 1 every 2 hours |
If it is true, by looking at the Table 2, it is very difficult to determine some accident patterns in which cyclists were involved, with the below graph we can quickly observe and identify very well defined patterns.
Observed patterns:
There is an evident increased number of accidents involving cyclists during the summer months, with a remarkable spike during the months of August and September of 2016.
There is a remarkable reduction of accidents during the month of February in previous years but an observed increased in the most current data. This could be correlated due to February being the shortest month in the year and being during the winter season.
There seems to be an observed increase of accidents involving cyclist starting in January 2016.
Questions:
Those interesting observations come to wonder the following questions:
Are accidents involving cyclists happening in established bicycle friendly paths?
Why there seems to be an increased number of accidents involving cyclists if there are more “safe” zones?
What happened in the summer months of 2016? Why so many more accidents involving cyclists?
What could be the reasons for the observed patterns?
In hopes of responding the above questions, I will keep breaking down the data in hopes of identifying more patterns and possible causes.
By the borough
In hopes of identifying extra patterns and possible, causes and “hot” locations, I will review the data provided and split it into the five boroughs.
Borough yearly summary
borough | No. pedestrians injuried | No. cyclist injuried | Percentage | Monthly Average | Daily Average | Probability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BROOKLYN | 27 | 7339 | 34.18 % | 612 | 20 | 1 every 1 hours |
MANHATTAN | 21 | 5559 | 25.89 % | 463 | 15 | 1 every 2 hours |
QUEENS | 11 | 3632 | 16.91 % | 303 | 10 | 1 every 2 hours |
NA | 21 | 3076 | 14.32 % | 256 | 8 | 1 every 3 hours |
BRONX | 4 | 1677 | 7.81 % | 140 | 5 | 1 every 5 hours |
STATEN ISLAND | 1 | 191 | 0.89 % | 16 | 1 | 1 every 24 hours |
Observed patterns:
From the Table 3, we can quickly identify interesting observations as follows:
BROOKLYN heads the count with the highest number of cyclist involved in an accident with a total number of 7339, representing 34.18 % of our given data.
MANHATTAN is the second borough with the highest number of cyclist involved in an accident with a total number of 5559, representing 25.89 % of our given data.
The difference in between BROOKLYN and MANHATTAN is given by 1780 accidents involving cyclists or 8.29 % difference.
STATEN ISLAND heads the count with the lowest number of cyclist involved in an accident with a total number of 191, representing 0.89 % of our given data. Thus, makes it the “safest” borough to ride a bicycle since an average of 1 accident per day has been recorded.
BRONX has a significant low number of reported accidents involving cyclists compared to the other boroughs.
There’s an important number of accidents involving cyclists not assigned to their respective borough.
With the expectation of identifying extra patterns and identifying extra information, I will break down our data into their respective boroughs.
Borough monthly summary
Month | BRONX | BROOKLYN | MANHATTAN | QUEENS | STATEN ISLAND | Not Available | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
May, 2017 | 8 | 49 | 40 | 32 | 1 | 40 | 170 |
Apr, 2017 | 22 | 87 | 84 | 43 | 4 | 126 | 366 |
Mar, 2017 | 21 | 61 | 52 | 30 | 1 | 69 | 234 |
Feb, 2017 | 13 | 54 | 59 | 30 | 2 | 70 | 228 |
Jan, 2017 | 24 | 92 | 58 | 57 | 7 | 70 | 308 |
Dec, 2016 | 11 | 74 | 53 | 40 | 1 | 81 | 260 |
Nov, 2016 | 18 | 115 | 80 | 62 | 3 | 140 | 418 |
Oct, 2016 | 19 | 135 | 119 | 85 | 8 | 174 | 540 |
Sep, 2016 | 76 | 207 | 145 | 121 | 2 | 229 | 780 |
Aug, 2016 | 97 | 342 | 246 | 180 | 9 | 360 | 1234 |
Jul, 2016 | 43 | 155 | 90 | 69 | 6 | 131 | 494 |
Jun, 2016 | 40 | 131 | 106 | 64 | 2 | 122 | 465 |
May, 2016 | 37 | 122 | 106 | 72 | 6 | 79 | 422 |
Apr, 2016 | 28 | 124 | 116 | 50 | 2 | 30 | 350 |
Mar, 2016 | 29 | 125 | 74 | 48 | 3 | 33 | 312 |
Feb, 2016 | 15 | 59 | 53 | 20 | 1 | 18 | 166 |
Jan, 2016 | 7 | 67 | 49 | 28 | 2 | 13 | 166 |
Dec, 2015 | 26 | 101 | 94 | 42 | 1 | 28 | 292 |
Nov, 2015 | 22 | 125 | 111 | 62 | 0 | 23 | 343 |
Oct, 2015 | 34 | 148 | 129 | 60 | 3 | 34 | 408 |
Sep, 2015 | 49 | 176 | 142 | 95 | 7 | 48 | 517 |
Aug, 2015 | 52 | 194 | 145 | 114 | 2 | 62 | 569 |
Jul, 2015 | 45 | 216 | 123 | 113 | 5 | 72 | 574 |
Jun, 2015 | 48 | 146 | 111 | 89 | 2 | 45 | 441 |
May, 2015 | 38 | 173 | 133 | 78 | 2 | 50 | 474 |
Apr, 2015 | 25 | 104 | 92 | 54 | 6 | 23 | 304 |
Mar, 2015 | 8 | 61 | 52 | 27 | 2 | 11 | 161 |
Feb, 2015 | 2 | 26 | 24 | 16 | 0 | 14 | 82 |
Jan, 2015 | 14 | 43 | 35 | 14 | 0 | 9 | 115 |
Dec, 2014 | 14 | 65 | 59 | 33 | 2 | 13 | 186 |
Nov, 2014 | 21 | 113 | 60 | 60 | 2 | 24 | 280 |
Oct, 2014 | 41 | 160 | 116 | 75 | 2 | 36 | 430 |
Sep, 2014 | 62 | 167 | 116 | 87 | 7 | 49 | 488 |
Aug, 2014 | 39 | 189 | 143 | 87 | 7 | 36 | 501 |
Jul, 2014 | 46 | 182 | 145 | 113 | 6 | 46 | 538 |
Jun, 2014 | 52 | 170 | 135 | 74 | 5 | 37 | 473 |
May, 2014 | 39 | 133 | 127 | 64 | 1 | 24 | 388 |
Apr, 2014 | 21 | 107 | 100 | 54 | 4 | 23 | 309 |
Mar, 2014 | 11 | 53 | 70 | 32 | 1 | 23 | 190 |
Feb, 2014 | 4 | 27 | 44 | 11 | 1 | 7 | 94 |
Jan, 2014 | 6 | 42 | 40 | 24 | 1 | 7 | 120 |
Dec, 2013 | 9 | 68 | 55 | 30 | 0 | 13 | 175 |
Nov, 2013 | 10 | 113 | 91 | 46 | 1 | 20 | 281 |
Oct, 2013 | 22 | 182 | 113 | 64 | 6 | 42 | 429 |
Sep, 2013 | 36 | 174 | 128 | 88 | 7 | 46 | 479 |
Aug, 2013 | 46 | 202 | 132 | 88 | 5 | 51 | 524 |
Jul, 2013 | 48 | 180 | 119 | 68 | 1 | 54 | 470 |
Jun, 2013 | 45 | 197 | 125 | 98 | 5 | 38 | 508 |
May, 2013 | 27 | 154 | 110 | 70 | 4 | 35 | 400 |
Apr, 2013 | 23 | 97 | 86 | 58 | 4 | 22 | 290 |
Mar, 2013 | 13 | 57 | 61 | 48 | 2 | 14 | 195 |
Feb, 2013 | 8 | 42 | 46 | 27 | 0 | 8 | 131 |
Jan, 2013 | 8 | 73 | 64 | 36 | 0 | 11 | 192 |
Dec, 2012 | 16 | 88 | 58 | 34 | 0 | 16 | 212 |
Nov, 2012 | 12 | 108 | 67 | 64 | 3 | 22 | 276 |
Oct, 2012 | 20 | 138 | 85 | 55 | 2 | 32 | 332 |
Sep, 2012 | 33 | 162 | 105 | 88 | 6 | 39 | 433 |
Aug, 2012 | 36 | 208 | 125 | 81 | 8 | 49 | 507 |
Jul, 2012 | 38 | 176 | 113 | 80 | 8 | 35 | 450 |
Bronx borough
Brooklyn borough
Manhattan borough
Queens borough
Staten Island borough
Unknown borough
Observed patterns:
- Normality is observed with the majority of the boroughs as follows:
If we look and visually compare our Graph 2 with their respective boroughs graphs, we quickly identify some sort of “pattern similarity” in regards of all boroughs except Staten Island; that is, Staten Island seems not to follow the norm “observed” with the other boroughs and the General data as displayed in the Graph 2. This could be related to lower number of reported accidents not allowing a sense of normality to be defined with their borough’s data.
By Street and Zip Code
Yearly summary
The below table, display the top 10 streets with the highest number of accidents involving cyclists in NYC. This table is ranked with the top mention being first and the least of the ten mentions being last.
Top 10 by year
Rank | X2017 | X2016 | X2015 | X2014 | X2013 | X2012 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | [ 5 ] CHRYSTIE STREET, 10002 | [ 25 ] BROADWAY, 11206 | [ 17 ] GRAND STREET, 11211 | [ 18 ] 5 AVENUE, 11215 | [ 20 ] GRAND STREET, 11211 | [ 13 ] DELANCEY STREET, 10002 |
2 | [ 5 ] EAST HOUSTON STREET, 10002 | [ 13 ] OCEAN AVENUE, 11226 | [ 15 ] BROADWAY, 11206 | [ 18 ] GRAND STREET, 11211 | [ 17 ] MYRTLE AVENUE, 11205 | [ 12 ] ROOSEVELT AVENUE, 11368 |
3 | [ 4 ] CATON AVENUE, 11226 | [ 10 ] 5 AVENUE, 11215 | [ 15 ] BUSHWICK AVENUE, 11206 | [ 17 ] BROADWAY, 11206 | [ 15 ] 5 AVENUE, 11215 | [ 11 ] FLUSHING AVENUE, 11205 |
4 | [ 4 ] FLUSHING AVENUE, 11206 | [ 10 ] DE KALB AVENUE, 11205 | [ 15 ] DELANCEY STREET, 10002 | [ 14 ] 5 AVENUE, 11232 | [ 15 ] DELANCEY STREET, 10002 | [ 11 ] GRAND STREET, 11211 |
5 | [ 3 ] 18 AVENUE, 11204 | [ 10 ] FLUSHING AVENUE, 11205 | [ 15 ] MYRTLE AVENUE, 11205 | [ 13 ] EAST 23 STREET, 10010 | [ 14 ] EAST 23 STREET, 10010 | [ 11 ] ROOSEVELT AVENUE, 11372 |
6 | [ 3 ] 61 STREET, 11377 | [ 10 ] GRAND STREET, 11211 | [ 14 ] CHRYSTIE STREET, 10002 | [ 13 ] EAST HOUSTON STREET, 10002 | [ 14 ] FULTON STREET, 11238 | [ 10 ] FLATBUSH AVENUE, 11217 |
7 | [ 3 ] 7 AVENUE, 10019 | [ 9 ] BEDFORD AVENUE, 11226 | [ 14 ] FLUSHING AVENUE, 11205 | [ 13 ] ROOSEVELT AVENUE, 11377 | [ 14 ] ROOSEVELT AVENUE, 11372 | [ 10 ] MYRTLE AVENUE, 11205 |
8 | [ 3 ] BORINQUEN PLACE, 11211 | [ 9 ] DELANCEY STREET, 10002 | [ 13 ] 5 AVENUE, 11232 | [ 12 ] MYRTLE AVENUE, 11205 | [ 14 ] VANDERBILT AVENUE, 11238 | [ 9 ] CHRYSTIE STREET, 10002 |
9 | [ 3 ] BROADWAY, 11206 | [ 8 ] EAST 138 STREET, 10454 | [ 13 ] ROOSEVELT AVENUE, 11368 | [ 11 ] AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, 10011 | [ 13 ] 1 AVENUE, 10009 | [ 8 ] BEDFORD AVENUE, 11226 |
10 | [ 3 ] CLARENDON ROAD, 11226 | [ 8 ] EAST 149 STREET, 10455 | [ 12 ] 34 AVENUE, 11372 | [ 11 ] FULTON STREET, 11238 | [ 13 ] BEDFORD AVENUE, 11225 | [ 7 ] BROADWAY, 11206 |
Observed patterns:
From the table 5, we can identify as follows:
EAST HOUSTON STREET, 10002 seems to be a hot spot for accidents involving cyclists in NYC. As we know, that is busy street and the proximity to BROOKLYN which contains the highest number of accidents in the five borough might impact as well.
BROADWAY, 11206 was the top street with the most accidents involving cyclists reported in 2016, but also ranks within the top ten in previous years as well; an interesting observation is that BROADWAY, 11206 is opposite located from EAST HOUSTON STREET, 10002 being BROADWAY in BROOKLYN and EAST HOUSTON STREET in MANHATTAN. The two of them are connected by the famous Williamsburg Bridge.
GRAND STREET, 11211 is located right off the Williamsburg bridge and same as BROADWAY, 11206 it has a high rate of accidents in the BROOKLYN area.
DELANCEY STREET, 10002 has been on the top as well, and a very interesting observation is that this is also, located off the Williamsburg bridge in MANHATTAN.
A good observation to make is the high number of accidents involving cyclists around the Williamsburg bridge; there seems to be a great sense of distraction and traffic around that area.
Top 10 of all times
street | Count | Percentage |
---|---|---|
GRAND STREET, 11211 | 79 | 0.48 % |
BROADWAY, 11206 | 78 | 0.47 % |
DELANCEY STREET, 10002 | 63 | 0.38 % |
5 AVENUE, 11215 | 60 | 0.36 % |
MYRTLE AVENUE, 11205 | 60 | 0.36 % |
ROOSEVELT AVENUE, 11368 | 59 | 0.36 % |
FLUSHING AVENUE, 11205 | 54 | 0.33 % |
EAST 23 STREET, 10010 | 48 | 0.29 % |
ROOSEVELT AVENUE, 11372 | 48 | 0.29 % |
CHRYSTIE STREET, 10002 | 47 | 0.28 % |
From our previous Graph, you can find all the top ten streets by the number of accidents in all reported accidents involving cyclists.
Observed patterns:
GRAND STREET, 11211 and BROADWAY, 11206 have the most accidents recorded involving a cyclist.
Some of those streets are marked as bicycle friendly zones and others do not; interesting is to find that bike paths present a high number of accidents specially in BROOKLYN.
Borough summary
vehicle.Type | BRONX | BROOKLYN | MANHATTAN | QUEENS | STATEN ISLAND | Not Available | Total | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PASSENGER VEHICLE | 889 | 4078 | 2219 | 2018 | 116 | 1547 | 10867 | 52.54 % |
SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON | 277 | 1559 | 762 | 797 | 33 | 522 | 3950 | 19.1 % |
TAXI | 40 | 150 | 1240 | 75 | 0 | 135 | 1640 | 7.93 % |
UNKNOWN | 162 | 539 | 290 | 226 | 22 | 146 | 1385 | 6.7 % |
NA | 102 | 219 | 201 | 145 | 9 | 250 | 926 | 4.48 % |
VAN | 28 | 165 | 157 | 72 | 1 | 33 | 456 | 2.2 % |
LIVERY VEHICLE | 56 | 49 | 150 | 31 | 0 | 32 | 318 | 1.54 % |
OTHER | 24 | 110 | 89 | 42 | 5 | 29 | 299 | 1.45 % |
BUS | 12 | 70 | 86 | 30 | 1 | 16 | 215 | 1.04 % |
PICK-UP TRUCK | 12 | 52 | 82 | 33 | 2 | 32 | 213 | 1.03 % |
SMALL COM VEH(4 TIRES) | 11 | 51 | 77 | 22 | 0 | 19 | 180 | 0.87 % |
LARGE COM VEH(6 OR MORE TIRES) | 3 | 28 | 33 | 13 | 0 | 12 | 89 | 0.43 % |
MOTORCYCLE | 7 | 28 | 26 | 11 | 1 | 15 | 88 | 0.43 % |
PEDICAB | 0 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 25 | 0.12 % |
AMBULANCE | 5 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 0.09 % |
SCOOTER | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 0.04 % |
FIRE TRUCK | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 0.03 % |
Observed patterns:
From table 10, we can quickly observe a few interesting patterns of vehicle types reported during accidents involving cyclists as follows:
The main vehicle type involved in accidents with cyclists in all NYC boroughs is PASSENGER VEHICLE with grand total of 10867 accidents involved representing 52.54 % for all years.
BROOKLYN has the highest bicycle ratio of accidents with a passenger vehicle and sport utility / station wagon vehicle types, doubling MANHATTAN and QUEENS on each vehicle type.
MANHATTAN leads the number of accidents involving cyclists with Taxi cabs, livery vehicles, buses and pick-up trucks.
By contributing factors
Yearly summary
The below table, display the top 10 contributed factors that were mentioned as the cause of accident involving cyclists in NYC. This table is ranked with the top mention being first and the least of the ten mentions being last.
Top 10 by year
Rank | X2017 | X2016 | X2015 | X2014 | X2013 | X2012 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Distraction | Distraction | Distraction | Distraction | Distraction | Distraction |
2 | Driver Inattention | Driver Inattention | Driver Inattention | Driver Inattention | Driver Inattention | Driver Inattention |
3 | Failure to Yield Right-of-Way | Failure to Yield Right-of-Way | Passenger Distraction | Passenger Distraction | Passenger Distraction | Passenger Distraction |
4 | Bicyclist | NA | Failure to Yield Right-of-Way | Failure to Yield Right-of-Way | Failure to Yield Right-of-Way | Failure to Yield Right-of-Way |
5 | Confusion | Bicyclist | Other Vehicular | NA | Other Vehicular | Physical Disability |
6 | Other Pedestrian Error | Confusion | NA | Other Vehicular | Physical Disability | Other Vehicular |
7 | Pedestrian | Other Pedestrian Error | Physical Disability | Physical Disability | Lost Consciousness | Lost Consciousness |
8 | NA | Pedestrian | Lost Consciousness | Lost Consciousness | Prescription Medication | Limited |
9 | Passing or Lane Usage Improper | Passenger Distraction | Drowsy | Prescription Medication | Drowsy | Turning Improperly |
10 | Traffic Control Disregarded | Traffic Control Disregarded | Fatigued | Traffic Control Disregarded | Fatigued | View Obstructed |
Observed patterns:
From the table 5, we can quickly identify as follows:
Distraction and Driver Inattention are the two leading contributing factors for the present year.
Distraction and Driver Inattention were also the two most contributing factors in registered accidents involving cyclists in the past years as well.
Pedestrians show a significant increase starting in 2016; that is, pedestrians were not listed in the 10 ten in previous years.
Failure to obey traffic control signals seems to be a major contributing factor by both drivers and cyclists.
Prescription, non prescription medication and physical disability seems to be recurrent factors for all years.
Top 10 of all times
contributing.Factor | Count |
---|---|
Distraction | 3928 |
Driver Inattention | 3928 |
Passenger Distraction | 1954 |
Failure to Yield Right-of-Way | 1895 |
NA | 959 |
Other Vehicular | 805 |
Physical Disability | 594 |
Lost Consciousness | 473 |
Bicyclist | 470 |
Confusion | 470 |
From our previous Graph, you can find all the top ten contributing factors by the number of mentions in all reported accidents involving cyclists. These mentions were taken from all parties involved, that is: drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
Observed patterns:
In this, case we can quickly identify the contributing factor mentions difference in between the top and bottom, these differences are quite significant and large.
Distraction and driver inattention have been consistent for all years and really play a big role in the contribution of factors at the time of accidents involving cyclists if we go by the number of mentions.
Amazing to see how pedestrian factors are in the rise starting in 2016.
Borough summary
contributing.Factor | BRONX | BROOKLYN | MANHATTAN | QUEENS | STATEN ISLAND | Not Available | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Distraction | 237 | 1059 | 1211 | 812 | 38 | 571 | 3928 |
Driver Inattention | 237 | 1059 | 1211 | 812 | 38 | 571 | 3928 |
Passenger Distraction | 191 | 621 | 600 | 316 | 10 | 216 | 1954 |
Failure to Yield Right-of-Way | 101 | 726 | 447 | 348 | 12 | 261 | 1895 |
NA | 102 | 236 | 250 | 151 | 10 | 210 | 959 |
Other Vehicular | 58 | 124 | 499 | 47 | 12 | 65 | 805 |
Physical Disability | 50 | 215 | 181 | 88 | 2 | 58 | 594 |
Lost Consciousness | 32 | 149 | 189 | 59 | 3 | 41 | 473 |
Bicyclist | 40 | 111 | 110 | 54 | 4 | 151 | 470 |
Confusion | 40 | 111 | 110 | 54 | 4 | 151 | 470 |
Other Pedestrian Error | 40 | 111 | 110 | 54 | 4 | 151 | 470 |
Pedestrian | 40 | 111 | 110 | 54 | 4 | 151 | 470 |
Traffic Control Disregarded | 25 | 126 | 100 | 60 | 1 | 96 | 408 |
Prescription Medication | 23 | 117 | 93 | 42 | 1 | 34 | 310 |
Drowsy | 13 | 106 | 124 | 30 | 1 | 27 | 301 |
Fatigued | 13 | 106 | 124 | 30 | 1 | 27 | 301 |
Driver Inexperience | 15 | 70 | 85 | 34 | 0 | 46 | 250 |
Turning Improperly | 22 | 44 | 132 | 18 | 0 | 32 | 248 |
Limited | 19 | 81 | 46 | 26 | 2 | 23 | 197 |
View Obstructed | 19 | 81 | 46 | 26 | 2 | 23 | 197 |
Passing or Lane Usage Improper | 4 | 31 | 68 | 22 | 0 | 57 | 182 |
Illness | 7 | 27 | 121 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 170 |
Alcohol Involvement | 11 | 56 | 31 | 25 | 3 | 22 | 148 |
Backing Unsafely | 17 | 46 | 32 | 21 | 0 | 18 | 134 |
Outside Car Distraction | 4 | 46 | 41 | 14 | 0 | 9 | 114 |
Pavement Slippery | 9 | 34 | 25 | 15 | 2 | 9 | 94 |
Following Too Closely | 4 | 20 | 20 | 9 | 1 | 29 | 83 |
Aggressive Driving | 5 | 28 | 22 | 7 | 0 | 13 | 75 |
Reaction to Other Uninvolved Vehicle | 4 | 33 | 19 | 9 | 1 | 9 | 75 |
Road Rage | 5 | 28 | 22 | 7 | 0 | 13 | 75 |
Unsafe Speed | 1 | 24 | 14 | 7 | 0 | 27 | 73 |
Glare | 12 | 16 | 3 | 14 | 1 | 5 | 51 |
Unsafe Lane Changing | 4 | 5 | 22 | 3 | 1 | 14 | 49 |
Brakes Defective | 12 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 11 | 46 |
Oversized Vehicle | 0 | 8 | 17 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 31 |
Other Electronic Device | 3 | 13 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 29 |
Pavement Defective | 0 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 28 |
Debris | 1 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 18 |
Obstruction | 1 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 18 |
Drugs (Illegal) | 1 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 17 |
Inadequate | 2 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 17 |
Failure to Keep Right | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 16 |
Lane Marking Improper | 2 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15 |
Fell Asleep | 1 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 13 |
Headlights Defective | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
Other Lighting Defects | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
Cell Phone (hand-held) | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
Steering Failure | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Cell Phone (hands-free) | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
Non-Working | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Traffic Control Device Improper | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Animals Action | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Driverless | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Runaway Vehicle | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Tire Failure | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Tow Hitch Defective | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Windshield Inadequate | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Observed patterns:
From table 7, we can quickly observe a few interesting patterns of contributing factors reported as the cause of accidents involving cyclists as follows:
The main contributing factors are problematic all over the 5 boroughs, that is Distraction and Driver inattention are the top contributed factors all over the five boroughs.
BROOKLYN seems to present a very high number of accidents reporting Failure to Yield Right-of-Way contrary to the BRONX or STATEN ISLAND for example.
BROOKLYN and MANHATTAN stand out due to Passanger distraction, doubling up QUEENS and about three times more than the BRONX boroughs.
BROOKLYN present a high number of Alcohol Involvement mentions compared to the other boroughs.
By vehicle type
Yearly summary
The below table, display the top 5 vehicle types that were mentioned in accidents involving cyclists in NYC. This table is ranked with the top mention being first and the least of the ten mentions being last.
Top 5 by year
Rank | X2017 | X2016 | X2015 | X2014 | X2013 | X2012 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | PASSENGER VEHICLE | PASSENGER VEHICLE | PASSENGER VEHICLE | PASSENGER VEHICLE | PASSENGER VEHICLE | PASSENGER VEHICLE |
2 | SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON | SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON | SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON | SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON | SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON | SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON |
3 | NA | NA | UNKNOWN | TAXI | TAXI | TAXI |
4 | TAXI | TAXI | TAXI | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN |
5 | PICK-UP TRUCK | UNKNOWN | NA | NA | VAN | VAN |
Observed patterns:
From the table 8, we can quickly identify as follows:
PASSENGER VEHICLE and SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON are the two leading vehicle types registered in accidents for the present year.
PASSENGER VEHICLE and SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON were also the two most leading vehicle types in registered accidents involving cyclists in the past years as well.
NA show as a consistent vehicle type involved in accidents with a cyclist.
PICK-UP TRUCK and MOTORCYCLE seems to be on the raise in the last couple years.
Top 10 of all times
vehicle.Type | Count | Percentage |
---|---|---|
PASSENGER VEHICLE | 10867 | 52.54 % |
SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON | 3950 | 19.1 % |
TAXI | 1640 | 7.93 % |
UNKNOWN | 1385 | 6.7 % |
NA | 926 | 4.48 % |
VAN | 456 | 2.2 % |
LIVERY VEHICLE | 318 | 1.54 % |
OTHER | 299 | 1.45 % |
BUS | 215 | 1.04 % |
PICK-UP TRUCK | 213 | 1.03 % |
From our previous Graph, you can find all the top ten vehicle types by the number of accidents in all reported accidents involving cyclists.
Observed patterns:
In this, case we can quickly identify how great of a difference relies in between the top (Passenger Vehicle) and the second to highest (Sport Utility / Station Wagon), these differences are quite significant and large.
Public transporation and Commercial vehicles don’t have as many accidents involving cyclists as private owned vehicles do.
Small vehicles have the highest number of accidents involving cyclists compared to large vehicles such as buses, pick-up trucks or commercial vehicles.
PASSENGER VEHICLE is involved in one of every two accidents when a cyclist gets injured.
Borough summary
vehicle.Type | BRONX | BROOKLYN | MANHATTAN | QUEENS | STATEN ISLAND | Not Available | Total | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PASSENGER VEHICLE | 889 | 4078 | 2219 | 2018 | 116 | 1547 | 10867 | 52.54 % |
SPORT UTILITY / STATION WAGON | 277 | 1559 | 762 | 797 | 33 | 522 | 3950 | 19.1 % |
TAXI | 40 | 150 | 1240 | 75 | 0 | 135 | 1640 | 7.93 % |
UNKNOWN | 162 | 539 | 290 | 226 | 22 | 146 | 1385 | 6.7 % |
NA | 102 | 219 | 201 | 145 | 9 | 250 | 926 | 4.48 % |
VAN | 28 | 165 | 157 | 72 | 1 | 33 | 456 | 2.2 % |
LIVERY VEHICLE | 56 | 49 | 150 | 31 | 0 | 32 | 318 | 1.54 % |
OTHER | 24 | 110 | 89 | 42 | 5 | 29 | 299 | 1.45 % |
BUS | 12 | 70 | 86 | 30 | 1 | 16 | 215 | 1.04 % |
PICK-UP TRUCK | 12 | 52 | 82 | 33 | 2 | 32 | 213 | 1.03 % |
SMALL COM VEH(4 TIRES) | 11 | 51 | 77 | 22 | 0 | 19 | 180 | 0.87 % |
LARGE COM VEH(6 OR MORE TIRES) | 3 | 28 | 33 | 13 | 0 | 12 | 89 | 0.43 % |
MOTORCYCLE | 7 | 28 | 26 | 11 | 1 | 15 | 88 | 0.43 % |
PEDICAB | 0 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 25 | 0.12 % |
AMBULANCE | 5 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 0.09 % |
SCOOTER | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 0.04 % |
FIRE TRUCK | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 0.03 % |
Observed patterns:
From table 10, we can quickly observe a few interesting patterns of vehicle types reported during accidents involving cyclists as follows:
The main vehicle type involved in accidents with cyclists in all NYC boroughs is PASSENGER VEHICLE with grand total of 10867 accidents involved representing 52.54 % for all years.
BROOKLYN has the highest bicycle ratio of accidents with a passenger vehicle and sport utility / station wagon vehicle types, doubling MANHATTAN and QUEENS on each vehicle type.
MANHATTAN leads the number of accidents involving cyclists with Taxi cabs, livery vehicles, buses and pick-up trucks.
Conclusions
Something that caught my interest was something that NYCBikeMaps.com express on their site as follows: “NYCBikeMaps.com makes no guarantees that the bike routes listed will be suitable for all cyclists”. I think this is remarkable true due to the high number of accidents already listed in diverse roads and locations.
Avoid Brooklyn as much as possible, pick Staten Island or the Bronx for a safer ride!
Be alert and watch for passenger vehicles since one in every two accidents is reported to be one of those types.
Follow the greenways and designated bike paths.
Respect the transit signals.
Recommendations
Follow NYCBikeMaps.com five color legend to classify routes for cyclists.
Stay in a Bike Path, Green way, Off-Street bike path or designated path in parks or on-street protected bike paths.
Use Special Bike Paths or Lanes with special hours or unique conditions, including Central Park & Prospect Park.
Use the Bike Lane on-street striped route.
Use Sharrows / Signed Route on street signed route or sharrow signs for bicycle riders.
Cyclists must be on high alert if riding on-street routes with traffic; that is no bike signage or separation is present.
Since bike lanes & paths sometimes may be blocked by cars or pedestrians, or closed due to construction or maintenance; drivers and cyclists need to enforce extra cautioning order to ride safely and responsibly.
References
https://www.programmableweb.com/news/7-free-geocoding-apis-google-bing-yahoo-and-mapquest/2012/06/21
https://www.programmableweb.com/api/mapquest-geocoding
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/start?refresh=1
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/googleway/index.html