4.7 Article

Work-related road safety: The impact of the low noise levels produced by electric vehicles according to experienced drivers

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 580-588

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.021

关键词

Electric vehicles; Risk perception; Experienced drivers; Work-related road safety; Low noise

资金

  1. Spanish Department of Traffic (DGT) [SPIP2015-01765]
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport of the Government of Spain through the Programa de Formacion del Profesorado Universitario [FPU 16/03298]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The introduction of electric vehicles in urban areas contributes to the reduction of air and noise pollution in these environments. However, the low noise levels produced by these vehicles, previously seen as an advantage, could pose a new risk to the safety of road users. The real magnitude of this issue is, however, controversial. The present study analyses the perception of experienced electric and hybrid vehicle drivers in work situations, something which had not been studied to date. A total of 95 electric car and motorcycle drivers from different public companies in the city of Malaga, Spain, participated in the study. These drivers described risk situations with pedestrians at low speeds, especially in shared streets. They estimated that the risk caused by the low noise levels of these vehicles is medium. To compensate, many drivers stated that they are more alert while driving an electric vehicle. Additionally, the drivers suggested that equipping these vehicles with continuous external sound was not the most appropriate solution. In the scientific community there is no consensus on the best way to resolve this. Nevertheless, electric vehicles are now required to incorporate additional sound in the European Union and USA. This does not mean that this is a more effective solution. More research on this issue is thus needed, such as studying other non-acoustic solutions or analysing how other road users perceive the risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据