Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Mattapan Food and Fitness Coalition, Boston, MA 02126, USA.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Feb 7;16(3):484. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030484.
While studies of bicyclist's perceptions of crime and crash safety exist, it is also important to ask lower-income predominantly-minority residents what bicycle-route surface or context they perceive as safest from crime and crashes. With their insights, their chosen bike environments could be in engineering guidelines and built in their neighborhoods to improve residents' health and lessen their risk of exposure to crime or crashing. This study involved two populations in Boston: (a) community-sense participants (eight groups-church/YMCA = 116); and (b) street-sense participants (five groups-halfway house/homeless shelter/gang members = 96). Participants ranked and described what they saw in 32 photographs of six types of bicycle environments. Quantitative data (Likert Scale 0⁻6 with 0 being low risk of crime/crash) involved regression analysis to test differences. Qualitative comments were categorized into 55 themes for surface or context and if high or low in association with crime or crashes. For crime, two-way cycle tracks had a significantly lower score (safest) than all others (2.35; < 0.01) and share-use paths had a significantly higher score (least safe) (3.39; < 0.01). For crashes, participants rated shared-use paths as safest (1.17) followed by two-way cycle tracks (1.68), one-way cycle tracks (2.95), bike lanes (4.06), sharrows (4.17), and roads (4.58), with a significant difference for any two groups ( < 0.01) except between bike lane and sharrow ( = 0.9). Street-sense participants ranked all, except shared-use paths, higher for crime and crash. For surface, wide two-way cycle tracks with freshly painted lines, stencils, and arrows were low risk for crime and a cycle track's median, red color, stencils, and arrows low risk for crash. For context, clean signs, balconies, cafes, street lights, no cuts between buildings, and flowers were low risk for crime and witnesses, little traffic, and bike signals low risk for crash. As bicycle design guidelines and general Crime Perception Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles do not include these details, perhaps new guidelines could be written.
虽然已经有研究探讨了自行车骑行者对犯罪和碰撞安全的认知，但了解低收入、以少数族裔为主的居民对哪些自行车道表面或环境认为最安全，以避免犯罪和碰撞，同样很重要。通过他们的见解，可以将他们所选择的自行车环境纳入工程指南，并在他们的社区中进行建设，以改善居民的健康状况，降低他们遭受犯罪或碰撞的风险。本研究涉及波士顿的两个群体：（a）社区意识参与者（八个群体——教堂/基督教青年会=116 人）；和（b）街头意识参与者（五个群体——中途之家/无家可归者收容所/帮派成员=96 人）。参与者对 32 张六种类型自行车环境的照片进行了排名和描述。定量数据（Likert Scale 0⁻6，0 表示犯罪/碰撞风险低）涉及回归分析以检验差异。定性评论被归类为 55 个主题，用于表面或环境，如果与犯罪或碰撞相关，则分为高或低。对于犯罪，双车道自行车道的得分明显较低（最安全）（2.35；<0.01），而共享使用路径的得分明显较高（最不安全）（3.39；<0.01）。对于碰撞，参与者将共享使用路径评为最安全（1.17），其次是双车道自行车道（1.68）、单车道自行车道（2.95）、自行车道（4.06）、箭头（4.17）和道路（4.58），除了自行车道和箭头之间（=0.9）没有显著差异外，任何两组之间都有显著差异（<0.01）。街头意识参与者对除共享使用路径外的所有路径的犯罪和碰撞风险都进行了更高的评分。对于表面，双车道自行车道宽阔，且线、模板和箭头新鲜涂漆，具有低犯罪风险，自行车道的中央分隔带、红色、模板和箭头具有低碰撞风险。对于环境，干净的标志、阳台、咖啡馆、路灯、建筑物之间没有切口以及花卉具有低犯罪风险，而证人、交通流量少和自行车信号具有低碰撞风险。由于自行车设计指南和一般的犯罪感知环境设计（CPTED）原则不包括这些细节，也许可以编写新的指南。
