4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Drivers' gap acceptance in front of approaching bicycles - Effects of bicycle speed and bicycle type

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 283-289

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.021

关键词

Road safety; e-bike; Time to arrival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The growing popularity of electric bicycles gives rise to a variety of road safety questions. One of the issues is e-bikes' potential to achieve a higher speed compared to conventional bicycles. Especially for road users that are unfamiliar with that type of bicycle, underestimations of speed might be suspected which could lead drivers to accept unsafe gaps (e.g. for turning manoeuvres) in front of approaching e-bikes. But also higher speed as such might prove problematic, as previous studies have shown repeatedly that drivers tend to choose smaller time gaps in front of vehicles approaching at higher speed. Forty-two drivers (two age groups) were recruited to investigate their gap acceptance behaviour on a test track. Participants were seated in a car, waiting to enter traffic, which would have required crossing a lane on which a cyclist approached. Cyclists approached at speeds between 15 and 35 km/h and rode either a conventional bicycle or an e-bike. Participants were instructed to press a foot pedal to indicate the last moment at which they would be willing to enter traffic in front of the bicyclist. Results show that with increasing cyclist speed, accepted time gaps became significantly shorter. At the same time, participants appeared to select shorter time gaps when the approaching bicycle was an electric one, even though the two different bicycle types could not be distinguished from the participants' position. Although we found only few accepted gap sizes that would have been especially risky, the findings indicate that the effect of bicycle speed has to be considered when discussing the consequences of an increased e-bike prevalence for road safety. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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