Study: Multiuse Bike Paths Have Hazards

By LINDA BAUER

Published: Jul 22, 2005 12:00 am

STORRS â Many assume that walking, running, biking, or skating on multiuse bike paths instead of areas closer to road traffic means they face little risk to their safety. A study by the Connecticut Transportation Institute (CTI) at the University of Connecticutâs School of Engineering shows that even though bike paths are free of vehicular traffic, they can still pose significant safety risks for the people who use them.

âDespite the logical assumption that removal of bicycles and pedestrians from proximity to motorized traffic should improve their safety, this research shows otherwise,â said Lisa Aultman-Hall, the author of the study, director of CTI, and an associate professor of engineering at UConn.

âBike paths are a tremendous resource for communities and I certainly hope they continue to grow in popularity, but most of us assume, incorrectly, that the safety issues on shared-use paths are minor and certainly far less serious than the safety issues on roads. Unfortunately, these areas can present significant safety risks that many do not understand,â she said.

The findings of the study, which was completed in 2004, will be published in an upcoming issue of Transportation Research Record, the journal of the Transportation Research Board.

The researchers surveyed 684 shared-user path users during the course of a year on the three shared-use path facilities in Connecticut â the Farmington River Trail in Canton, the Farmington River Trail in Farmington, and the Farmington Heritage Canal Greenway in Cheshire.

Fifty-one collisions or falls were reported â 37 on the specific sections of shared-use paths being studied. Of those 51 events, 35 resulted in injuries, two of which were considered major. The results showed that fall and collision rates for skaters were highest, followed by bicyclists and then pedestrians. The bicycle fall or collision rate was three times that of pedestrians, while the rate for skaters was over six times that of pedestrians.

The study was funded by the Connecticut State Department of Transportation.

Patricia Anzellotti

Fire Reports | August 13-19, 2025

Labor Day Closings & Early Deadlines

Police Reports | August 2-August 17

DAV, RecruitMilitary Host National Virtual Career Fair For Veterans

It seems a lot of the discussion around the flagpole focuses on vilifying drivers who pass on the right, but the real issue is being overlooked. If Chapter 248 Section 14-251 were enforced, we wouldn’t see this problem to begin with. That statute prohibits stopping in the middle of a roadway to yield to cross traffic—as so often happens with cars waiting to turn from Church Hill. When vehicles stop illegally in the travel lane, they effectively create a blockage. Other drivers then either sit through unnecessary delays or carefully pass around them on the right, which is fully permitted when the vehicle ahead is “illegally parked” in the roadway. Instead of punishing drivers reacting to the obstruction, enforcement should focus on the cause: vehicles unlawfully stopping and backing up traffic in the first place. If that behavior were addressed, the need to “go around” would largely disappear.

Borough Board of Burgesses Continues Traffic Safety Discussion

John, you raise an important point — these situations are tragic, complicated, and often far less clear-cut than the headlines make them seem. In the Fredericksburg case, the full facts still aren’t publicly known, and like so many of these stories, there’s conflicting information. It was apparently the back door at 3 a.m. — was it justified to use deadly force? We don’t know yet. What we do know is that the homeowner has been charged, and as you rightly noted, that is very serious. But this is also where perspective matters. These cases are quickly sensationalized in the news and on social media, yet when the dust settles, the outcomes are rarely publicized. People forget that in our system, you are innocent until proven guilty. Try to find much coverage of the convication in the case of the Fairfield Realtor vehicle homicide, or updates on the woman who shot her husband a couple of Christmases ago, or even the pedestrian death in Sandy Hook a year or so back. The follow-through simply isn’t there, and public opinion is often shaped only by the first round of headlines. At the end of the day, these situations remind us how split-second decisions in the middle of the night can change lives forever — which is exactly why the right to protect one’s property, home and family is so fiercely debated, and lucky constitutionally protected.

Late Night Prank Gone Wrong

First the low hanging fruit. Dave; it was a joke, please get over it. You are the only person in Newtown that thought I really wanted to build a stadium on 6 Commence Rd. Now on to Alex. You might not appreciate my writing style or my selection of words, but let's not loose sight of the fact that by responding to my letter in the manner that you did, you have removed any doubt whatsoever that you have no idea of the quantifiable benefits you are dismissing not only for the town, but also for protesters. Either you stopped listening at the word "ordinance" or you never started.. Your constitutional rights to assemble were never in question and would actually be strengthened and there would be literally no impediments. We could even title it "The Alex Villamil Ordinance" if you want. It could be your legacy and actually show Newtown your willingness to work in a bipartisan way for the betterment of the town. Businesses would be protected. Traffic wouldn't be interrupted. The town would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in police overtime. And maybe most importantly, the town could prevent another tragedy while mitigating legal risk in the event something terrible happens at a protest. Nothing bad could never happen in Newtown right? All that could be accomplished by a simple, non-intrusive ordinance unless all the detriments to our town are intentional in order to bring more attention to your cause. Alex, this was not me throwing a temper tantrum. Believe me, you will know it if that happens. I am just putting Newtown first. From that perspective, if you think critically, the regulation is necessary. It makes sense logically, rationally, and is reasonable. There is absolutely no down side. None. I would be willing to sit down with you to see if we could come to some type of compromise if you want. Let me know. You would be amazed how much you can accomplish when there is dialogue amongst neighbors.

It’s About Dialogue Amongst Neighbors — Not Regulation

A popular prank circulating on TikTok is “ding-dong-ditch” where a group of young people violently bang or kick someone’s door late at night and then “ditch” or run. On May 3 three high schoolers here in Fredericksburg Va. were participating in such a prank. One homeowner assumed, as in this case, an attempted break in and also took measures to defend his family and property. As the youths were running away he fired, striking an 18 year old graduating senior in the back killing him and seriously injuring a second youth. A wasted life, a family shattered, and the homeowner charged with murder.

You’re absolutely right — no one should ever feel unsafe in their own home. Being startled awake by violent banging at your door late at night is no joke, and it’s a stark reminder that danger can come without warning. That’s why I’m thankful for the right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. In a moment like that, you don’t get a second chance to call for help before you act — you have to be prepared. Our homes should be a place of peace, not fear, and the ability to defend them is a right worth safeguarding.

<< Aug 2025 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
27	28	29	30	31	1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	1	2	3	4	5	6

Log In

Study: Multiuse Bike Paths Have Hazards

Leave a Reply Cancel reply