Journal
JOURNAL OF URBAN MOBILITY
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100066
Keywords
Cycling safety; Risk perception; Objective safety; Bike score; Cycling infrastructure
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Feeling safe is crucial for cyclists and can deter potential cyclists from using bicycles. This study proposes two scores, RG Score and FMB Score, to predict subjective safety from objective environmental information. The scores were validated by comparing them to questionnaire ratings and crash statistics. The findings highlight the importance of subjective safety as an independent construct and provide insights into aspects that can be easily measured and aspects that need further consideration.
Feeling safe is a major issue for cyclists, and some potential cyclists are still deterred from using the bicycle because they feel too unsafe. Assessing the subjective safety of existing cycling infrastructures and locations can be done by questionnaires that show pictures of infrastructures and ask participants for their safety ratings. However, future cycling infrastructures should also be evaluated as safe even before they are implemented. Therefore, it is desirable to have a method that is able to predict safety from infrastructural information. This study aims to propose two different ways for such a method and to test both ways in a use case. We first developed two scores, namely the Repertory Grid (RG) Score and the FixMyBerlin (FMB) Score, which predict subjective safety from objective environmental information but use different data bases and different method-ologies. In a second step, we validated these scores by comparing them to questionnaire ratings that evaluated cyclists' subjective safety at 20 locations in the city of Braunschweig, Germany. Finally, we compared the two scores as well as the questionnaire ratings with objective safety measures, namely crash statistics, at the respective locations. The results show that the RG Score has a moderate agreement and the FMB Score has a fair agreement with the questionnaire ratings. All methods agree on the overall safety evaluation of various cycling facilities. However, the RG Score showed less variance in the safety ratings, whereas the FMB Score rated most locations more unsafe than the participants in the questionnaire. Interestingly, neither the scores nor the questionnaire ratings could sufficiently deduce the occurrence of a crash at one of the locations. The findings strengthen the importance of subjective safety as a construct independent of objective safety. Furthermore, they provide insights into aspects of subjective safety that can easily be measured by objective scores, and into aspects that are important for cyclists but were not yet covered by the scores. This study, therefore, provides a basis for future considerations and future evaluation methods to assess the subjective safety of cyclists.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available