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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanders, Rebecca L., 2016. "We can all get along: The alignment of driver and bicyclist roadway design preferences in the San Francisco Bay Area," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 120-133.
    2. Gabriele Prati & Víctor Marín Puchades & Marco De Angelis & Federico Fraboni & Luca Pietrantoni, 2018. "Factors contributing to bicycle–motorised vehicle collisions: a systematic literature review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 184-208, March.
    3. Aldred, Rachel, 2016. "Cycling near misses: Their frequency, impact, and prevention," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 69-83.
    4. VANDENBULCKE, Grégory & THOMAS, Isabelle & INT PANIS, Luc, 2014. "Predicting cycling accident risk in Brussels: a spatial case-control approach," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2535, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Meghan Winters & Gavin Davidson & Diana Kao & Kay Teschke, 2011. "Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: comparing influences on decisions to ride," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 153-168, January.
    7. Che, Maohao & Wong, Yiik Diew & Lum, Kit Meng & Wang, Xueqin, 2021. "Interaction behaviour of active mobility users in shared space," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 52-65.
    8. Gössling, Stefan & McRae, Sophia, 2022. "Subjectively safe cycling infrastructure: New insights for urban designs," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Kang, Lei & Fricker, Jon D., 2016. "Sharing urban sidewalks with bicyclists? An exploratory analysis of pedestrian perceptions and attitudes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 216-225.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ravensbergen, Léa & Buliung, Ron & Laliberté, Nicole, 2020. "Fear of cycling: Social, spatial, and temporal dimensions," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Shin, Eun Jin, 2023. "Decomposing neighborhood disparities in bicycle crashes: A Gelbach decomposition analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 156-172.
    3. Che, Maohao & Wong, Yiik Diew & Lum, Kit Meng & Liu, Shuai, 2024. "Impact of “keep left” measure on pedestrians, cyclists and e-scooter riders at a crossing of a signalised junction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    5. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    6. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    9. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    10. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    11. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    12. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    13. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    14. Singal, Vijay & Xu, Zhaojin, 2011. "Selling winners, holding losers: Effect on fund flows and survival of disposition-prone mutual funds," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2704-2718, October.
    15. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    16. Alex Cukierman & Anton Muscatelli, 2001. "Do Central Banks have Precautionary Demands for Expansions and for Price Stability?," Working Papers 2002_4, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Mar 2002.
    17. Dash, Saumya Ranjan & Maitra, Debasish, 2018. "Does sentiment matter for stock returns? Evidence from Indian stock market using wavelet approach," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 32-39.
    18. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    19. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    20. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.