IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v179y2024ics0965856423003610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A matter of space and perspective – Cyclists’, car drivers’, and pedestrians’ assumptions about subjective safety in shared traffic situations

Author

Listed:
  • von Stülpnagel, Rul
  • Rintelen, Heiko

Abstract

Subjective safety has been considered a key factor for a successful promotion of cycling. As of yet, subjective safety and the factors affecting it have been studied almost exclusively from the cyclists’ perspective. However, subjective safety is largely determined by the interaction of cyclists with other road users. We thus argue that it is crucial to assess the subjective safety different road user groups associate with shared road situations, because street designs that increase the subjective safety of one group may have negative impacts on the subjective safety of another group. For this purpose, we conducted a large-scale, web-based survey presenting computer-generated 2D images showing various traffic situations. The entire pool of images included 1,900 variations and combinations of road designs. About 21,500 individual participants provided about 460,000 estimates with regard to the safety they associated with travelling at the shown location from the perspective of cyclists, car drivers, or pedestrians. Our analysis with generalized mixed models focused on three base scenarios and the comparison of the different perspectives: Side streets were perceived as unsafe by both cyclists and car drivers. A prominent designation as a cycling boulevard had highly positive effects, especially for cyclists. On main streets, cyclists and car drivers rated mixed traffic without cycling infrastructure as very unsafe, and situations with cyclists travelling on protected bike lanes as very safe. Whereas car drivers rated all types of cycling lanes as safe, this did not generally apply to cyclists. In particular, narrow cycling lanes adjacent to parked cars felt unsafe for cyclists. We hypothesize that this discrepancy has a self-reinforcing mechanism: Research on risk-taking suggests that the low risk perception of car drivers leads to more risky behavior (e.g. overtaking cyclists with higher speed and less lateral clearance), which in turn decreases the subjective safety of cyclists. We found an inverted pattern for sidewalks, where cyclists felt mostly safe, and the more vulnerable pedestrians did not (especially if there was no clear indication of lanes for both groups). Taken together, our research sheds light on an as-of-yet rather under-researched issue: the perception of a traffic situation may vary significantly depending on the perspective and transportation mode of a road user. More specifically, our findings suggest that the subjective safety of vulnerable road users in a traffic situation can be negatively affected by the perception of this situation by the less vulnerable road users. We present recommendations about road designs that feel safe for all road user groups.

Suggested Citation

  • von Stülpnagel, Rul & Rintelen, Heiko, 2024. "A matter of space and perspective – Cyclists’, car drivers’, and pedestrians’ assumptions about subjective safety in shared traffic situations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s0965856423003610
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856423003610
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103941?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:179:y:2024:i:c:s0965856423003610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.