I bet you feel safe! assessing cyclists’ subjective safety by objective scores

IF 2.7 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Journal of Urban Mobility Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100066
Stefan Fuest , Mariana Batista , Frauke Luise Berghoefer , Morten Flesser , Bhagya Shrithi Grandhi , Felix Spühler , Monika Sester , Mark Vollrath
{"title":"I bet you feel safe! assessing cyclists’ subjective safety by objective scores","authors":"Stefan Fuest ,&nbsp;Mariana Batista ,&nbsp;Frauke Luise Berghoefer ,&nbsp;Morten Flesser ,&nbsp;Bhagya Shrithi Grandhi ,&nbsp;Felix Spühler ,&nbsp;Monika Sester ,&nbsp;Mark Vollrath","doi":"10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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 <em>Repertory Grid (RG) Score</em> and the <em>FixMyBerlin (FMB) Score</em>, which predict subjective safety from objective environmental information but use different data bases and different methodologies. 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100852,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Mobility","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100066"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Mobility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667091723000225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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 methodologies. 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我打赌你会感到安全!用客观分数评估骑自行车者的主观安全
对骑自行车的人来说,安全感是一个主要问题,一些潜在的骑自行车的人们仍然不敢使用自行车,因为他们觉得太不安全了。可以通过问卷调查来评估现有自行车基础设施和地点的主观安全性,问卷显示基础设施的图片,并询问参与者的安全评级。然而,即使在实施之前,未来的自行车基础设施也应该被评估为安全的。因此,希望有一种能够根据基础设施信息预测安全性的方法。本研究旨在为这种方法提出两种不同的方法,并在用例中测试这两种方法。我们首先开发了两个评分,即汇编网格(RG)评分和FixMyBerlin(FMB)评分,它们根据客观环境信息预测主观安全性,但使用不同的数据库和不同的方法。在第二步中,我们通过将这些分数与问卷评分进行比较来验证这些分数,问卷评分评估了德国布伦瑞克市20个地点骑自行车者的主观安全性。最后,我们将这两个分数以及问卷评分与各自地点的客观安全措施(即碰撞统计数据)进行了比较。结果表明,RG评分与问卷评分具有适度一致性,FMB评分与问卷评级具有公平一致性。所有方法都同意对各种自行车设施进行整体安全评估。然而,RG评分显示安全评级的差异较小,而FMB评分则认为大多数地点比问卷中的参与者更不安全。有趣的是,无论是分数还是问卷评分都无法充分推断其中一个地点发生了车祸。研究结果强化了主观安全作为一种独立于客观安全的结构的重要性。此外,它们还深入了解了可以通过客观分数轻松衡量的主观安全方面,以及对骑自行车的人来说很重要但尚未被分数覆盖的方面。因此,这项研究为未来评估骑车人主观安全的考虑因素和评估方法提供了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contrasting Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the First Full-Year School Street Initiatives in Ontario, Canada Just around the corner: Accessibility by proximity in the 15-minute city Diminishing returns of additional active travel infrastructure: Evaluating Barcelona's decade of sustainable transportation progress Effects of different mobility concepts in new residential areas Enhancing last mile connectivity using shared mobility: A stated preference survey of business park commuters
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1