Elsevier

Journal of Transport & Health

Volume 6, September 2017, Pages 13-22
Journal of Transport & Health

Cyclist’ safety perceptions of cycling infrastructure at un-signalised intersections: Cross-sectional survey of Queensland cyclists

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.03.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Safety perceptions of cycling infrastructure at intersections was researched.

  • Off-road bicycle paths was perceived to be the safest cycling infrastructure.

  • Cyclists were more concerned about being sideswiped than taking a direct hit at the side.

Abstract

Previous research suggests that cyclists’ perceptions of the safety of cycling infrastructure influences their desire to ride on that infrastructure. Cycling infrastructure includes both cycling facilities and cycling-supportive road treatments. While researchers have previously examined the safety perceptions of cycling infrastructure on midblock road sections, little is known about the safety perceptions of cycling infrastructure at intersections. The aim of this study was to investigate which types of cycling infrastructure do cyclists perceive to be the safest at un-signalised intersections. This study was conducted in Queensland, Australia. Adult members of bicycle organisations (N=214) completed an online survey about their demographic characteristics, cycling habits, previous near-miss or collision experiences while cycling, and safety perceptions of cycling infrastructure at intersections. General linear mixed-modelling was used to examine associations between safety perceptions and 12 types of cycling infrastructure at three different motorist-cyclist interaction scenarios. Off-road bicycle paths and footpaths were perceived to be the safest cycling infrastructure at un-signalised intersections (p<0.05). While cycling through an intersection, participants were more concerned about being sideswiped than being struck directly at the side by a motorist (p<0.05). The findings suggest that cyclists’ safety perceptions of cycling infrastructure at un-signalised intersections are associated with motorists’ yielding behaviour towards cyclists. Cyclists felt safer using cycling infrastructure where they had to give way to turning motorists at the intersection than using cycling infrastructure where they had the right of way. By doing so, cyclists can decide whether or not it is safe to cross the intersection rather than worry about turning motorists who could be attempting to outrace them. In practice, assessing motorists’ behaviours and attitudes towards cyclists should be considered before designing and implementing cycling infrastructure at intersections.

Introduction

As a form of active transport, cycling provides significant benefits to personal health. These benefits include reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases, cancer risk, and obesity (Oja et al., 2011). Longitudinal studies in Denmark and Belgium have shown that cycling to work significantly improves cardiorespiratory fitness, reduces body fat (Møller et al., 2011), and reduces the risk of coronary heart disease (De Geus et al., 2008). Cycling as a social activity also provides psychosocial benefits. A qualitative study in Australia showed that participating in cycling groups improves social connections by facilitating the making of friends beyond a person's usual social group (Zander et al., 2013). Travelling on bicycles instead of by motor vehicles can also benefit the environment by reducing the amount of air pollutants emitted from fuel-powered engines (Lindsay et al., 2011, Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011).

In Australia, only about 1% of daily trips to work are by cycling (Transport, Housing, and Local Government Committee, 2013). Although this percentage is similar to those reported in North America, it is very low compared to percentages reported for some European countries where 10–25% of daily trips to work are commuted by cycling (Transport, Housing, and Local Government Committee, 2013).

A major deterrent to cycling is the risk of being involved in a road collision with a motorist (Fraser and Lock, 2010, Heesch et al., 2012, O’Connor and Brown, 2010, Winters et al., 2011). In Australia, from 1999 to 2012, being involved in a collision with a motorist was the second most reported reason (13.6% of reported reasons) for cyclist injuries requiring hospital admittance (Transport, Housing, and Local Government Committee, 2013). In Australia, Europe, and North America, researchers have found that most cyclists perceive cycling on major roads with high motorist traffic is unsafe and are concerned about being hit by a motorist (Chaurand and Delhomme, 2013, Mullan, 2013, O’Connor and Brown, 2010, Sanders, 2015). Conversely, most cyclists feel safe cycling in quiet residential locations, off-road, and on roads without parked vehicles (Lawson et al., 2015; Winters et al., 2012). Other factors that can deter people from cycling include the risk of exposure to air pollutants that are emitted from motor vehicles and the lack of cycling infrastructure (Khreis et al., 2016, Schepers et al., 2015).

Cycling infrastructure, which is any on-road or off-road area that has been designated or permitted for cyclists to use, can be created to separate motorist and cyclist traffic and reduce the risk of road collisions between them (Schepers et al., 2015, Thomas and DeRobertis, 2013). In addition to safety, cycling infrastructure can improve route connectivity between destinations. Better route connectivity can reduce the amount of stops or diversions that a cyclist may need to take to reach a destination (Rietveld and Daniel, 2004). Therefore, cycling infrastructure enables cyclists to get to places quicker and can make cycling a more attractive form of transport or activity. There are two types of cycling infrastructure: cycling facilities and cycling-supportive road treatments. Cycling facilities are designated trails for cyclists only and are created to improve their safety and comfort (Austroads, 2014, Transport for London, 2014a; Transport, Housing, and Local Government Committee, 2013). The most common types of cycling facilities are shared lanes, bicycle lanes, segregated bicycle tracks, and off-road bicycle paths. Cycling-supportive road treatments are road implementations that have been designed to reduce the risk of road collisions at areas where there will be a high risk of road conflict between motorists and cyclists. They are often implemented in conjunction with cycling facilities, particularly at intersections. Some cycling-supportive road treatments at intersections that have been recommended by Australian and European transport planners include bicycle boxes (advanced stop line), advanced give-way lines, continuous bicycle paths, bent-in bicycle paths, bent-out bicycle paths, and channelised left-turn treatments (Austroads, 2014, European Transport Safety Council, 2012, Transport for London, 2014b; Transport, Housing, and Local Government Committee, 2013).

Knowing the types of cycling infrastructure at intersections that are safe for cyclists to use could be beneficial for further improvement in cyclist road safety because the intersection is a common location for road conflict and collisions between motorists and cyclists (Boufous et al., 2012, De Geus et al., 2012, Dozza and Werneke, 2014, Isaksson-Hellman, 2012, Kaplan and Prato, 2013). From 2003 to 2012 in Queensland, Australia, 29.4% of cyclist road incidents occurred at T-intersections and 15% at four-way intersections (Transport, Housing, and Local Government Committee, 2013). Road intersections are prone to creating road user conflict because motorists and cyclists share and cross each other's paths at the junction point (Isaksson-Hellman, 2012). To date, research into the safety of different types of cycling infrastructure at intersections is inconclusive. In a recent systematic review, Mulvaney et al. (2015) concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that cycling infrastructure, including at intersections, improves objectively-measured cyclist safety.

In countries with limited cycling infrastructure like Australia, assessing cyclists’ safety perceptions of cycling infrastructure has been an alternative method of understanding which types of cycling infrastructure are safe to use. Cyclists’ safety perceptions have been associated with individual cycling location preferences, cycling habits, and cycling behaviours (Chataway et al., 2014, Chaurand and Delhomme, 2013, Lawson et al., 2013, Mullan, 2013, O’Connor and Brown, 2010, Sanders, 2015, Washington et al., 2012). Researchers from the United States found that cyclists perceive off-road bicycle paths and segregated bicycle tracks to be safer than bicycle lanes (National Institute for Transport and Communities, 2014; Winters et al., 2012). However, these researchers only examined cycling facilities, not-cycling-supportive road treatments. In one of the United States studies (National Institute for Transport and Communities, 2014), the researchers adjusted for cyclists’ safety perceptions of both midblock road sections and intersections in the analysis, but the influence of those factors on safety perceptions was not addressed. In summary, there is limited knowledge about the safety perceptions of cycling facilities, and knowledge about the safety perceptions of cycling-supportive road treatments at intersections is lacking. Gaining a more comprehensive understanding of cyclists’ safety perceptions of cycling infrastructure at intersections (both cycling facilities and cycling-supportive road treatments) will be an important step in understanding what types of cycling infrastructure will make cyclists feel safer at intersections and consequently, could encourage them to use the infrastructure.

The aim of this study was to investigate which types of cycling infrastructure do cyclists perceive to be the safest at un-signalised intersections. This study targeted cyclist populations because people who currently cycle are more likely to be knowledgeable about cyclists’ on-road safety concerns than people who do not cycle. Un-signalised intersections are junctions that use give-way and stop signs to govern which approach points have priority in traffic. Unlike signalised (traffic light) intersections, both motorists and cyclists need to be aware of other road user's behaviours to navigate safely through an un-signalised intersection. Cyclists who fail to yield to motorists that have the priority in traffic are at risk of causing a road collision and are at risk of inflicting fatal or serious injuries to themselves (Bíl et al., 2010). This research was conducted in Queensland, Australia, where cycling infrastructure is still uncommon on the roads. Although some Queensland roads have been retrofitted with bicycle lanes, many metropolitan and suburban areas lack cycling infrastructure. Furthermore, some cycling-supportive road treatments used in European and North American countries are not yet being used in Queensland. Therefore, focusing on individual safety perceptions is a first step in understanding the types of cycling infrastructure that are perceived by Queensland cyclists to be safe enough to use at un-signalised intersections.

Section snippets

Sampling and study protocol

The present study used a cross-sectional survey design. The survey asked participants about their perceptions of safety of various types of cycling infrastructure at un-signalised intersections, as well as possible influences on these perceptions (demographic characteristics, cycling habits, and previous near-miss or collision experiences while cycling). Survey items were close-ended questions. The online survey was administered to adult cyclists, aged 18 years or over, who were members of

Sample characteristics

In total, 264 people completed the survey. Participants who were ineligible (not within the sampling frame or aged under 18 years: n=40) or had missing data (n=10) were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, 214 eligible participants were included in the analysis. Most eligible participants were male, aged between 45 and 54 years, held a bachelor or postgraduate degree, were employed full-time, and were not a parent or guardian to any children aged under 18 years (Table 1). Most participants

Discussion

The findings of the present study suggest that Queensland cyclists perceive off-road bicycle paths to be the safest type of cycling infrastructure at un-signalised intersections. Footpaths were perceived to have a similar level of safety as off-road bicycles paths. Segregated bicycle tracks, bicycle lanes with channelised left-turn, bicycle lanes with advanced give-way line, and continuous bicycle paths were perceived to be less safe than off-road bicycle paths and footpaths, but they were

Conclusions

Results indicated that off-road bicycle paths and footpaths, which were the only types of cycling infrastructure included in the study where the cyclist had to give way to motorists at the intersection, were perceived by Queensland cyclists to be the safest cycling infrastructure at un-signalised intersections. When cycling through an un-signalised intersection, Queensland cyclists were more concerned about being sideswiped than being struck directly at the side by a motorist. The findings

Role of funding source

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Department of Transport and Main Road staff and Queensland bicycle user group convenors for their feedback on the survey questions. The feedback was used to improve the questions before the survey was available to potential participants. We would also like to thank the members of Bicycle Queensland and members of Queensland bicycle user groups who gave their time to complete the online survey.

References (40)

  • J.P. O’Connor et al.

    Riding with the sharks: serious leisure cyclist's perceptions of sharing the road with motorists

    J. Sci. Med. Sport

    (2010)
  • J. Parkin et al.

    Models of perceived cycling risk and route acceptability

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2007)
  • P. Rietveld et al.

    Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter?

    Trans. Res. A

    (2004)
  • R.L. Sanders

    Perceived traffic risk for cyclists: the impact of near miss and collision experiences

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2015)
  • P. Schepers et al.

    The mortality impact of bicycle paths and lanes related to physical activity, air pollution exposure and road safety

    J. Trans. Health.

    (2015)
  • B. Thomas et al.

    The safety of urban cycle tracks: a review of the literature

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2013)
  • Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015. 4177.0 – Participation in Sport And Physical Recreation, Australia, 2013–14....
  • Austroads, 2014. Cycling Aspect of Austroads Guides. Austroads Ltd., Sydney. Available from...
  • Austroads, 2015. National Cycling Participation Survey: National Results. Austroads Ltd., Sydney. Available from...
  • B. De Geus et al.

    Cycling to work: influence on indexes of health in untrained men and women in Flanders. Coronary heart disease and quality of life

    Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sport.

    (2008)
  • Cited by (21)

    • Identifying the determinants and understanding their effect on the perception of safety, security, and comfort by pedestrians and cyclists: A systematic review

      2022, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the last stage, a cross-referencing of the 48 selected articles was conducted, and 20 additional articles were included after full-text analysis. Hence, after the selection process, a total of 68 articles, corresponding to references (Akar et al., 2013; Heinen and Handy, 2012; Böcker et al., 2016; Foster et al., 2014; Aceves-Gonzalez et al.; Adkins et al., 2019; Bellizzi et al., 2019; Bigazzi and Gehrke, Oct. 2018; Bosehans and Massola, Oct. 2018; Campbell et al., 2016; Chataway et al., 2014; Evans-Cowley and Akar, 2014; Felix et al., 2019; Fernández-Heredia et al., 2014; Ferrer et al., 2015; Ferrer and Ruiz, 2018; Heesch et al., 2012; Hidayati et al., 2020; Iwinska et al., 2018; Kelly et al., 2011; Kerr, 2016; King et al., 2012; Koh and Wong, 2013; Landa-Blanco and Avila, 2020; Lawson et al., 2013; Lawson et al., 2015; Le et al., 2019; Le et al., 2021; Lee and Shepley, 2012; Li et al., 2012; Lopez and Wong, 2017; Lord et al., 2018; Lovasi, 2013; Maestracci et al., 2012; Mfinanga, 2014; Mitra and Schofield, 2019; Mullan, 2012; Ng et al., 2017; Park and Garcia, 2020; Perdomo et al., 2014; Piatkowski and Marshall, 2015; Pooley et al., 2014; Ravensbergen et al., 2020; Sanders and Judelman, 2672; Sanders and Cooper, 2393; Simons et al., 2014; Spencer et al., 2013; Useche et al., 2019; Van Cauwenberg, 2012; Vedel et al., 2017; Wahlgren and Schantz, 2012; Wang et al., 2014; Wang and Akar, 2018; Winters et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2018; Narayanan, 2020; Márquez et al., 2020; Jamal et al., 2020; Li et al., 2012; Aldred and Woodcock, 2015; Robartes and Donna Chen, 2018; Majumdar et al., 2020; Fowler et al., 2016; Bateman et al., 2020; Russell et al., 2020; Abasahl et al., 2018; Nkurunziza et al., 2012; Wang and Akar, 2018), were selected for review and detailed analysis in the next step. Fig. 1 summarizes this process.

    • Risk-taking behaviors of e-scooter users: A survey in Paris

      2021, Accident Analysis and Prevention
      Citation Excerpt :

      The test–retest analysis demonstrated high reliability. To validate the questionnaire, even though no survey for the use of ES was known to the authors at the time when the questionnaire was prepared, we looked up relevant work about the behavior of cyclists (Useche et al., 2018; Ng et al., 2017). After collecting the responses, we took into account only fully responded questionnaires and used t-tests to compare the average responses of the different age groups of respondents and the different gender groups.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Victoria University, Ballarat Road, Footscray, 3011 Australia.

    View full text