Passing distance, speed and perceived risks to the cyclist and driver in passing events

Many studies have examined the level of risk perceived by cyclists when they are being passed by motor vehicles (e.g., Beck et al., 2021; Rasch et al., 2022) and others have reported that drivers with negative attitudes towards cyclists self-report higher levels of driver aggression towards cyclists (e.g., Delbosc et al., 2019; Fruhen & Flin, 2015; Haworth et al., 2018). However, self-reported behaviours may not reflect a driver's observable behaviour (Fruhen et al., 2019). Lamondia and Duthie (2012) proposed that LPD is an indicator of the driver's degree of respect for a cyclist but other driver factors may also be important. Little is known about how accurately drivers canjudge lateral passing distance (Haworth et al., 2018) or whether some unsafe passes could simply reflect poor driver understanding of cyclist needs when sharing roadways. The general finding that LPDs are lower when there are parked cars or oncoming vehicles (Rubie et al., 2020), suggests that drivers may leave inadequate LPDs if they perceive that moving into the opposite side of the road poses a risk to themselves or their vehicle. Rasch et al. (2022) is one of the few studies to measure drivers' perceptions of the risk to themselves in overtaking cyclists. Some studies have examined how different motor vehicle speeds influence perceived risk of the passing motor vehicle for cyclists (Apasnore et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2020; Llorca et al., 2017; Rasch et al., 2022) or drivers (Rasch et al., 2022), generally finding that cyclists perceive higher motor vehicle speeds are more hazardous. This paper examines (1) whether negative attitudes towards cyclists influence perceptions ofrisk: to the cyclist in passing events, (2) the factors associated with driver perceptions of the risk to themselves, and (3) if increases in motor vehicle speed are associated with higher levels of perceived risk to the cyclist and driver in the passing event. [From: Introduction

Pollution-Aware Walking in 16 Countries:An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

Background: The current levels of air pollution in European countries reduces life expectancy by an average of 8 months. People who actively travel by walking have a higher level of exposure to air pollution than those who use motor vehicles or electric buses. Some routes have higher air pollution levels than others, but little is known about pollution-aware route choice and intentions to actively avoid walking near polluted roads. An improved understanding of how air pollution influences intentions to walk or avoid polluted routes can inform interventions to decrease exposure. The present investigation has three aims: (1) compare experiences walking near roads with high levels of air pollution across countries; (2) identify groups of countries based on perceptions of air quality; and (3) examine how pedestrians develop their intentions of avoiding pollution using the extended TPB (demographics, social norms, attitudes, perceived control, and perceived risk).Methods: A cross-sectional design was applied. Pedestrians were asked about their experiences walking near roads with high levels of air pollution. To identify groups of countries with different levels of air pollution, a cluster analysis was implemented based on the perceptions of air quality. Finally, regressions were used to predict pedestrians’ intentions to avoid polluted roads per country group using the extended TPB.Results: 6180 respondents (Age M(SD)= 29.4(14.2); Males= 39.2%) ranging from 12.6% from Russia to 2.2% from Finland completed the questionnaire. The proportion of participants who reported never walking near air polluted roads was 12.4% (from 3% in Brazil to 54% in Japan). Seven groups of countries were identified using perceptions of air quality: G1(Japan, Mexico, Colombia, Turkey, Malaysia & Brazil), G2(Spain, Romania & Czechia), G3(Chile, Russia & Peru), G4(China), G5(Australia), G6(Finland), and G7(Portugal). Participants in China (G4) and Australia (G5) reported the worst and best air quality respectively. Across all countries, intentions to avoid polluted roads were associated with perceptions of risk. TPB-psychosocial factors such as social norms and perceived behavioural control also influenced intention in most groups. Favourable TPB-beliefs and low perceived risk increase intentions to avoid polluted routes.Conclusions: The willingness of pedestrians to walk on or near roads with high levels of air pollution differs significantly among countries in this study. Countries can be grouped based on their perceived air quality. Perceived risk was the only common predictor of intention to avoid polluted routes across the different groups of countries

Alcohol-impaired Walking in 16 Countries:A Theory-Based Investigation

Alcohol is a global risk factor for road trauma. Although drink driving has received most of the scholarly attention, there is growing evidence of the risks of alcohol-impaired walking. Alcohol-impaired pedestrians are over-represented in fatal crashes compared to non-impaired pedestrians. Additionally, empirical evidence shows that alcohol intoxication impairs road-crossing judgements. Besides some limited early research, much is unknown about the global prevalence and determinants of alcohol-impaired walking. Understanding alcohol-impaired walking will support health promotion initiatives and injury prevention. The present investigation has three aims: (1) compare the prevalence of alcohol-impaired walking across countries; (2) identify international groups of pedestrians based on psychosocial factors (i.e., Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and perceptions of risk); and (3) investigate how segments of pedestrians form their intention for alcohol-impaired walking using the extended TPB (i.e. subjective norm, attitudes, perceived control, and perceived risk). A cross-sectional design was applied. The target behaviour question was “have you been a pedestrian when your thinking or physical ability (balance/strength) is affected by alcohol?” to ensure comparability across countries. Cluster analysis based on the extended TPB was used to identify groups of countries. Finally, regressions were used to predict pedestrians’ intentions per group. A total of 6,166 respondents (Age M(SD) = 29.4 (14.2); Males = 39.2%) completed the questionnaire, ranging from 12.6% from Russia to 2.2% from Finland. The proportion of participants who reported never engaging in alcohol-impaired walking in the last three months ranged from 30.1% (Spain) to 83.1% (Turkey). Four groups of countries were identified: group-1 (Czech Republic, Spain, and Australia), group-2 (Russia and Finland), group-3 (Japan), and group-4 (final ten countries including Colombia, China, and Romania). Pedestrian intentions to engage in alcohol- impaired walking are predicted by perceptions of risk and TPB-psychosocial factors in group-1 and group-4. Favourable TPB-beliefs and low perceived risk increased alcohol-impaired walking intentions. Conversely, subjective norms were not significant in group-2 and only perceived risk predicted intention in group-3. The willingness of pedestrians to walk when alcohol-impaired differs significantly across the countries in this study. Perceived risk was the only common predictor among the 16 countries.</p

Motor vehicles passing cyclists: The cyclist and driver perspectives

Motor vehicles passing cyclists too closely is both unsafe and feels unsafe. The aim of this research was to increase understanding of the factors that influence passing distances and perceived risk, using the Comfort Zone Model. The Comfort Zone Model predicted the factors influencing the passing distances chosen by drivers which include traffic, road, and cyclist attributes. Passing distances and other factors such as motor vehicle speed, vehicle size and car parking then predict the perceived risk of passes for both cyclists and drivers

Passing distance, speed and perceived risks to the cyclist and driver in passing events

Many studies have examined the level of risk perceived by cyclists when they are being passed by motor vehicles (e.g., Beck et al., 2021; Rasch et al., 2022) and others have reported that drivers with negative attitudes towards cyclists self-report higher levels of driver aggression towards cyclists (e.g., Delbosc et al., 2019; Fruhen & Flin, 2015; Haworth et al., 2018). However, self-reported behaviours may not reflect a driver's observable behaviour (Fruhen et al., 2019). Lamondia and Duthie (2012) proposed that LPD is an indicator of the driver's degree of respect for a cyclist but other driver factors may also be important. Little is known about how accurately drivers canjudge lateral passing distance (Haworth et al., 2018) or whether some unsafe passes could simply reflect poor driver understanding of cyclist needs when sharing roadways. The general finding that LPDs are lower when there are parked cars or oncoming vehicles (Rubie et al., 2020), suggests that drivers may leave inadequate LPDs if they perceive that moving into the opposite side of the road poses a risk to themselves or their vehicle. Rasch et al. (2022) is one of the few studies to measure drivers' perceptions of the risk to themselves in overtaking cyclists. Some studies have examined how different motor vehicle speeds influence perceived risk of the passing motor vehicle for cyclists (Apasnore et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2020; Llorca et al., 2017; Rasch et al., 2022) or drivers (Rasch et al., 2022), generally finding that cyclists perceive higher motor vehicle speeds are more hazardous. This paper examines (1) whether negative attitudes towards cyclists influence perceptions ofrisk: to the cyclist in passing events, (2) the factors associated with driver perceptions of the risk to themselves, and (3) if increases in motor vehicle speed are associated with higher levels of perceived risk to the cyclist and driver in the passing event. [From: Introduction

Passing distance, speed and perceived risks to the cyclist and driver in passing events

Introduction: Up to 38% of crashes between motor vehicles and cyclists involve overtaking and close passes, contributing to a fear of cycling for both current and potential riders. Consequently, most research has focused on the cyclist’s perceptions of risk in passing events; but the driver’s perceptions may be more influential determinants of passing distances and thus, objective crash risk. Method: In an online cross-sectional survey, participants viewed 24 video clips of naturalistic passing events (external view akin to being a following driver) on urban roads in Queensland, Australia and judged distance and safety for both the portrayed cyclist and the passing driver. The passing events were filmed at a low-speed site (40 km/h speed limit) and a high-speed site (70 km/h speed limit). Results: The 240 cyclist participants were more likely to rate the pass as unsafe for the portrayed cyclist than the 71 non-cyclist participants. Narrow passing distance, parked vehicles, oncoming vehicles, and higher motor vehicle speeds were significant predictors of rating the pass as unsafe for the portrayed cyclist and the passing driver. In addition, female participants were more likely to rate the pass as unsafe for the driver. Participant age, attitudes toward cyclists and frequency of passing cyclists did not significantly affect safety judgments. Discussion: Traffic and roadway characteristics largely underlie perceptions of safety for both the cyclist and the driver when passing, even after accounting for passing distance. External, objective factors are more important than attitudes toward cyclists. Practical Applications: Attempts to improve the subjective and objective safety of passing events may be more successful if their focus is on modifying traffic and roadway characteristics, rather than attempting to change drivers’ attitudes toward cyclists. Limitations on motor-vehicle passing speed should be incorporated as part of safe bicycle passing laws

Passing distance, speed and perceived risks to the cyclist and driver in passing events

Many studies have examined the level of risk perceived by cyclists when they are being passed by motor vehicles (e.g., Beck et al., 2021; Rasch et al., 2022) and others have reported that drivers with negative attitudes towards cyclists self-report higher levels of driver aggression towards cyclists (e.g., Delbosc et al., 2019; Fruhen & Flin, 2015; Haworth et al., 2018). However, self-reported behaviours may not reflect a driver's observable behaviour (Fruhen et al., 2019). Lamondia and Duthie (2012) proposed that LPD is an indicator of the driver's degree of respect for a cyclist but other driver factors may also be important. Little is known about how accurately drivers canjudge lateral passing distance (Haworth et al., 2018) or whether some unsafe passes could simply reflect poor driver understanding of cyclist needs when sharing roadways. The general finding that LPDs are lower when there are parked cars or oncoming vehicles (Rubie et al., 2020), suggests that drivers may leave inadequate LPDs if they perceive that moving into the opposite side of the road poses a risk to themselves or their vehicle. Rasch et al. (2022) is one of the few studies to measure drivers' perceptions of the risk to themselves in overtaking cyclists. Some studies have examined how different motor vehicle speeds influence perceived risk of the passing motor vehicle for cyclists (Apasnore et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2020; Llorca et al., 2017; Rasch et al., 2022) or drivers (Rasch et al., 2022), generally finding that cyclists perceive higher motor vehicle speeds are more hazardous. This paper examines (1) whether negative attitudes towards cyclists influence perceptions ofrisk: to the cyclist in passing events, (2) the factors associated with driver perceptions of the risk to themselves, and (3) if increases in motor vehicle speed are associated with higher levels of perceived risk to the cyclist and driver in the passing event. [From: Introduction

Risky business : Comparing the riding behaviours of food delivery and private bicycle riders

The growth in the gig economy and a preference for home delivery of meals due to COVID-19 have led to huge growth in the food delivery business internationally and consequent road safety concerns. There is increasing evidence that delivery riding is an occupation with significant road safety risks because work pressures encourage risky behaviours. However, there is little or no research that directly compares delivery and private riders. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the impact of riding for work by comparing the observable riding behaviours of food delivery and private bicycle riders. Specifically, this investigation used decision trees to analyse the prevalence and patterns of risky riding behaviours of 2274 bicycle food delivery riders (BFDRs) and 1127 private bicycle riders observed in the inner suburbs of Brisbane, Australia. The results showed that helmet use was higher for BFDRs than private riders (99.8% versus 93.4%) but varied by company and for some companies, female BFDRs had lower wearing rates. Male BFDRs on electric bikes were more likely to wear helmets than those on standard bikes (99.7% versus 94.9%). Using a handheld mobile phone or having a mobile phone in a cradle was less common for one company (0.6%) than for the others (3.0%) or among private riders (1.8%). Among riders from the Other Companies, using a handheld mobile phone was more common on standard bikes and differed by time of day. Female BFDRs were more likely to be observed using handheld mobile phones. Overall, 24.0% of riders facing a red traffic or pedestrian signal ("red light") did not stop. This was more common among riders who rode on the footpath (Australian term for sidewalk), and particularly those who moved between the footpath and the road on electric bikes (49.5%) and among those who rode in the wrong direction in the traffic lane (55.0%). Whether the rider was a BFDR or private rider had little influence on red light running. The results suggest that BFDRs are not more likely to perform the risky behaviours examined, but that other factors such as bicycle type, gender, time of day and infrastructure appear to be more important determinants. However, the differences among companies suggest that organisational factors deserve further investigation.</p

Influences on lateral passing distance when motor vehicles overtake bicycles: A systematic literature review

Cyclists are often passed by motor vehicles in low-cycling countries where most riding occurs on roads. When passing events occur, the lateral passing distance (LPD) between motor vehicles and bicycles is critically important for objective and subjective safety. This systematic review identified 42 papers reporting 36 independent studies of LPD. Seven papers reported sufficient information to be included in meta-analyses for four different variables; road width, speed limit, on-road bicycle lanes compared to no bicycle lanes and bus versus car. The meta-analyses showed significant positive relationships between LPD and road width, and between LPD and speed limit; and smaller LPDs when cyclists were passed by buses rather than cars. The effect of on-road bicycle infrastructure was inconsistent. Studies that considered cyclist factors such as gender or type of cyclist showed mixed results. Seven out of eight studies found that the closer the cyclist rode to the kerb, the larger the LPD. Lastly, the passing strategy chosen by drivers (accelerative or flying) also showed mixed results. The results of the review are consistent with the predictions of the Multiple Comfort Zone model which predicts that the distance a driver leaves between their vehicle and other road users will be based on attempting to maintain their own comfort zone. Other motor vehicles pose a greater risk to drivers than bicycles, therefore the distance a driver chooses between their vehicle and a bicycle may be compromised if there are other vehicles present or if the available travel space is restricted. As governments around the world grapple with increasing health costs caused by physical inactivity, bicycle riding is being encouraged. Given the importance of the passing manoeuvre for cyclist safety, when designing infrastructure to foster cycling, factors that influence LPD should be considered.</p

Safe and risky behaviours of group cyclists

Cycling in a peloton or group is popular in many countries, including low cycling countries such as Australia. The literature shows that there are many potential benefits to riding in a group such as heightened personal security, easy way of finding, increased visibility for motor vehicles controllers, and social enjoyment (Heeremans et al., 2022). Despite these benefits and popularity, the road safety aspects of group riding are not well researched (Fraser &amp; Meuleners 2020). In low cycling countries, the main safety challenge that cyclists face is sharing space with motor vehicles (Fishman et al., 2012). Group cyclists share that safety challenge with individual cyclists, however, group cyclists also face unique challenges due to riding closely to each other, the larger space taken up on roadways, potentially higher speeds, and social norms that could increase risky behaviours (Heeremans et al., 2022). The aim of this paper is to increase understanding of the unique safety challenges faced by group cyclists, what behaviours group cyclists perform in response to these safety challenges, how group cyclists learn these safety behaviours and to increase knowledge of the unique road safety attributes of group cycling. <br/