自行车头盔使用与干扰:城市指定共享路径的观察研究

Camryn H. Hutchins, Bryan E. Porter
{"title":"自行车头盔使用与干扰:城市指定共享路径的观察研究","authors":"Camryn H. Hutchins, Bryan E. Porter","doi":"10.24839/2325-7342.jn28.4.239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Distraction has been a behavior evaluated among drivers and more recently pedestrians but remains understudied among bicyclists. Demographic variables have often been used to differentiate those who are likely to be distracted. However, there are differing conclusions about demographic influences of distracted bicycling and even distraction’s relationship itself to bicycle safety. This study observed bicyclist distraction and safety behaviors, along with possible demographic factors that could predict these behaviors. The authors observed cyclists on the Elizabeth River Trail, a bicyclist/pedestrian shared trail that covers 10.5 miles of an urban area. During data collection, observers collected data about the direction the cyclist was traveling, if they were with children, if they were wearing a helmet, if a distraction was present, and the type of distraction, if applicable (e.g., hand-held use of mobile phones, wearing headphones, eating, drinking). Observers also recorded participants’ perceived sex and estimated age. Frequency analyses revealed that 55.4% of 426 cyclists were not helmeted and 30.0% were distracted. The most common distraction was wearing headphones (19.5% of total cyclists observed). No significant relationship was found between helmet use and distraction. Younger cyclists were more likely than older cyclists to not wear a helmet and be distracted. These findings show a high prevalence of behaviors that may impact safety on designated cycling paths. The significant number of cyclists without a helmet and being distracted should create concern for potential injury risks to bicyclists on trails being built within urban areas if those bicyclists were to crash.","PeriodicalId":495523,"journal":{"name":"Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bicyclist Helmet Use and Distractions: An Observational Study on a Designated Urban Shared-Use Path\",\"authors\":\"Camryn H. Hutchins, Bryan E. Porter\",\"doi\":\"10.24839/2325-7342.jn28.4.239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Distraction has been a behavior evaluated among drivers and more recently pedestrians but remains understudied among bicyclists. Demographic variables have often been used to differentiate those who are likely to be distracted. However, there are differing conclusions about demographic influences of distracted bicycling and even distraction’s relationship itself to bicycle safety. This study observed bicyclist distraction and safety behaviors, along with possible demographic factors that could predict these behaviors. The authors observed cyclists on the Elizabeth River Trail, a bicyclist/pedestrian shared trail that covers 10.5 miles of an urban area. During data collection, observers collected data about the direction the cyclist was traveling, if they were with children, if they were wearing a helmet, if a distraction was present, and the type of distraction, if applicable (e.g., hand-held use of mobile phones, wearing headphones, eating, drinking). Observers also recorded participants’ perceived sex and estimated age. Frequency analyses revealed that 55.4% of 426 cyclists were not helmeted and 30.0% were distracted. The most common distraction was wearing headphones (19.5% of total cyclists observed). No significant relationship was found between helmet use and distraction. Younger cyclists were more likely than older cyclists to not wear a helmet and be distracted. These findings show a high prevalence of behaviors that may impact safety on designated cycling paths. The significant number of cyclists without a helmet and being distracted should create concern for potential injury risks to bicyclists on trails being built within urban areas if those bicyclists were to crash.\",\"PeriodicalId\":495523,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.jn28.4.239\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.jn28.4.239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对司机和最近的行人的分心行为进行了评估,但对骑自行车的人的研究还不够。人口统计变量经常被用来区分哪些人可能会分心。然而,关于分心骑车的人口影响,甚至分心本身与自行车安全的关系,有不同的结论。这项研究观察了骑自行车的人的分心和安全行为,以及可能预测这些行为的人口因素。作者观察了伊丽莎白河步道上骑自行车的人,这是一条自行车和行人共用的步道,覆盖了市区10.5英里。在数据收集过程中,观察员收集了有关骑自行车者行驶方向、是否带孩子、是否戴头盔、是否存在干扰以及干扰类型(如手持使用移动电话、戴耳机、进食、饮酒)的数据。观察人员还记录了参与者的感知性别和估计年龄。频率分析显示,在426名骑行者中,55.4%的人没有戴头盔,30.0%的人注意力不集中。最常见的分心是戴耳机(占观察到的骑车者总数的19.5%)。没有发现头盔使用与注意力分散之间的显著关系。年轻的骑车人比年长的骑车人更有可能不戴头盔和分心。这些发现表明,在指定的自行车道上,可能影响安全的行为非常普遍。大量骑自行车的人没有戴头盔,而且注意力不集中,这应该引起人们的关注,如果这些骑自行车的人在城市地区修建的小路上发生车祸,他们可能会受到伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Bicyclist Helmet Use and Distractions: An Observational Study on a Designated Urban Shared-Use Path
Distraction has been a behavior evaluated among drivers and more recently pedestrians but remains understudied among bicyclists. Demographic variables have often been used to differentiate those who are likely to be distracted. However, there are differing conclusions about demographic influences of distracted bicycling and even distraction’s relationship itself to bicycle safety. This study observed bicyclist distraction and safety behaviors, along with possible demographic factors that could predict these behaviors. The authors observed cyclists on the Elizabeth River Trail, a bicyclist/pedestrian shared trail that covers 10.5 miles of an urban area. During data collection, observers collected data about the direction the cyclist was traveling, if they were with children, if they were wearing a helmet, if a distraction was present, and the type of distraction, if applicable (e.g., hand-held use of mobile phones, wearing headphones, eating, drinking). Observers also recorded participants’ perceived sex and estimated age. Frequency analyses revealed that 55.4% of 426 cyclists were not helmeted and 30.0% were distracted. The most common distraction was wearing headphones (19.5% of total cyclists observed). No significant relationship was found between helmet use and distraction. Younger cyclists were more likely than older cyclists to not wear a helmet and be distracted. These findings show a high prevalence of behaviors that may impact safety on designated cycling paths. The significant number of cyclists without a helmet and being distracted should create concern for potential injury risks to bicyclists on trails being built within urban areas if those bicyclists were to crash.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Predicting Motivation and Learning Strategies in Community College Students Bicyclist Helmet Use and Distractions: An Observational Study on a Designated Urban Shared-Use Path Investigation of the Relationship Between Perceived Mental Workload and Chronic Pain Ally See or Ally Do: Rewarding Corporate Social Responsibility Through Purchasing Social Media Use Motives: An Influential Factor in User Behavior and User Health Profiles
×
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