4.7 Article

Cyclists' eye movements and crossing judgments at uncontrolled intersections: An eye-tracking study using animated video clips

期刊

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 270-280

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.08.024

关键词

Eye movements; Hazard anticipation; Crossing judgment; Bicycle-car interaction; Cycling safety

资金

  1. People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013/ under REA [608092, 605817]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research indicates that crashes between a cyclist and a car often occur even when the cyclist must have seen the approaching car, suggesting the importance of hazard anticipation skills. This study aimed to analyze cyclists' eye movements and crossing judgments while approaching an intersection at different speeds. Thirty-six participants watched animated video clips with a car approaching an uncontrolled four-way intersection and continuously indicated whether they would cross the intersection first. We varied (1) car approach scenario (passing, colliding, stopping), (2) traffic complexity (one or two approaching cars), and (3) cyclist's approach speed (15, 25, or 35 km/h). Results showed that participants looked at the approaching car when it was relevant to the task of crossing the intersection and posed an imminent hazard, and they directed less attention to the car after it had stopped or passed the intersection. Traffic complexity resulted in divided attention between the two cars, but participants retained most visual attention to the car that came from the right and had right of way. Effects of cycling speed on cyclists' gaze behavior and crossing judgments were small to moderate. In conclusion, cyclists' visual focus and crossing judgments are governed by situational factors (i.e., objects with priority and future collision potential), whereas cycling speed does not have substantial effects on eye movements and crossing judgments.

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