Models of perceived cycling risk and route acceptability

Abstract

Perceived cycling risk and route acceptability to potential users are obstacles to policy support for cycling and a better understanding of these issues will assist planners and decision makers. Two models of perceived risk, based on non-linear least squares, and a model of acceptability, based on the logit model, have been estimated for whole journeys based on responses from a sample of 144 commuters to video clips of routes and junctions.The risk models quantify the effect of motor traffic volumes, demonstrate that roundabouts add more to perceived risk than traffic signal controlled junctions and show that right turn manoeuvres increase perceived risk. Facilities for bicycle traffic along motor trafficked routes and at junctions are shown to have little effect on 1 perceived risk and this brings into question the value of such facilities in promoting bicycle use. These models would assist in specifying infrastructure improvements, the recommending of least risk advisory routes and assessing accessibility for bicycle traffic.The acceptability model confirms the effect of reduced perceived risk in traffic free conditions and the effects of signal controlled junctions and right turns. The acceptability models, which may be used at an area wide level, would assist in assessing the potential demand for cycling and in target setting.

Infrastructure and spatial effects on the frequency of cyclist-motorist collisions in the Copenhagen Region

“…Non-linearity is observed also with the vehicle traffic, and again as the traffic is expressed as vehicle × km and the parameter is significantly lower than 1, this non-linearity suggests that the crash rates diminish when vehicular traffic augments. This finding is not surprising, especially when considering that congestion has been generally related to lower crash rates because of the lower speeds and the consequent higher margins of error in recognizing a potential conflict (e.g., 16,18,23).…”

“…While some evidence points in the direction of cycling offering advantages because of the physical activity that reduces the health risks inherent to a sedentary life (e.g., 9,10,11), other evidence points in the direction of cycling bringing along negative effects because of the exposure to traffic pollution and crash risk (e.g., 12,13,14). When considering that the crash risk on a bicycle is definitely higher than the one on a motorized vehicle (e.g., 15,16,17) and factoring that it is the most significant disincentive to cycling (e.g., 18,19,20), investigating the factors contributing to the risk of being involved in a crash while riding a bicycle assumes a fundamental role for urban and transport planners aiming to increase the appeal of their cities and regions to potential cyclists.…”

Use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and risk of crashes involving other road users: Population based case-control study

“…This may lead to self-limiting of exposure to risk by choosing off-road paths or traffic calmed routes when they are available 231 . Choice of route may also related to cycling experience with experienced cyclists being more concerned with journey time and length than separation from traffic by contrast to the least experienced and some evidence of this has been reported 232 .…”

Do All Roadway Users Want the Same Things?

“…Research by Petritsch and Landis on bicycle LOS in Florida found that the presence or absence of a bicycle lane was the most commonly cited reason for giving a roadway a high or low score, respectively (12). In their analysis of perceived cycling risk and route acceptability, Parkin et al found that bicycle lanes could mitigate the perceived risk of bicycling near high amounts of auto traffic (13).…”