|Forfattere:||Aslak Fyhri, Aliaksei Laureshyn, Torkel Bjørnskau|
Cyclists tend to express a preference for separated infrastructure rather than sharing the road with cars. However, segregation as a principle is known to be associated with a higher risk of accidents whenever road user groups are forced to meet, at intersections. Norway, Denmark and Sweden have adopted different principles for planning of cyclist infrastructure, with var-ying degrees of traffic separation. In the current study, video observations and survey data are used to compare cyclists’ and car drivers’ interaction and experiences at roundabouts in Norway (no segregation), Denmark (in-termediate segregation) and Sweden (high segregation). Safety is measured using a surrogate measure, the Swedish traffic conflict methodology. The results confirm that cyclists tend to prefer solutions with high degrees of separation. How-ever, the conflict levels do not correspond to perceived safety. The Danish solutions (a marked cycle path in the roundabouts) give more conflicts than the typical Norwegian solution mixing traffic.