Queensland University of Technology, Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety -Queensland (CARRS-Q). K Block, 130 Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD 4059, Australia.
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, PO Box 93113, 2509 AC The Hague, The Netherlands.
Accid Anal Prev. 2021 Feb;150:105940. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105940. Epub 2020 Dec 17.
To assess the potential impact of the higher speeds of pedal-assisted bicycles on safety, this study compared conventional bicycles, pedelecs and speed pedelecs (hereafter called s-pedelecs) on mean speeds, speed variability, harsh braking events (decelerations > 2 m/s), and mean speeds above the speed limit (MSAL) in rural and urban areas in the Netherlands Data were collected in daily traffic, while the legal maximum speed for speed-pedelecs was 25 km/h, and pedelecs and s-pedelecs shared the infrastructure with conventional bicycles. Data were collected, using two-wheelers equipped with accelerometers and GPS. Personality factors - sensation seeking and risk taking - were measured with surveys. Regular commuters used one of the three bicycle types for two weeks. Participant bias was intentionally included by allowing participants to select a bicycle type of their preference, resulting in 12 conventional bicycle riders (71 % women), 14 pedelec riders (67 % women) and 20 s-pedelec riders (25 % women). S-pedelecs were much faster than conventional bicycles, amounting to a speed difference with conventional bicycles of 10.4 km/h in urban areas (M =28.2 km/h vs. 17.8 km/h) and of 13.2 km/h in rural areas (M = 31.4 km/h vs. 18.2 km/h). The speed differences between pedelecs and conventional bicycles were much smaller: 2.3 km/h in urban areas (20.1 km/h vs 17.8 km/h) and 4 km/h in rural areas (22.2 km/h vs. 18.2 km/h). Compared to conventional bicycles, s-pedelecs varied their speed to a greater extent and also braked harshly more frequently, showing a greater need for speed adjustment. These adjustments were larger at higher speeds. In contrast, pedelecs did not differ from conventional bicycles on speed variation. MSAL for s-pedelec riders differed by gender. For men the MSAL was 87 % on urban sections and 91 % on rural sections. For women, the MSAL was lower, respectively 23 and 69 %. None of the personality factors were associated with speed variability, harsh braking or MSAL. However, sensation seeking was associated with higher mean speeds on all three bicycle types. To conclude, pedelecs and conventional bicycles are similar in speed patterns, whereas the speed patterns of s-pedelecs differ significantly from the former two. The safety implications are discussed.
为了评估电动助力自行车更高速度对安全的潜在影响，本研究比较了荷兰农村和城市地区的传统自行车、电动助力自行车和电动助力自行车（以下简称“s-pedelec”）的平均速度、速度变异性、急刹车事件（减速度>2m/s）和超过限速的平均速度（MSAL）。数据是在日常交通中收集的，而 s-pedelec 的法定最高速度为 25km/h，pedelec 和 s-pedelec 与传统自行车共享基础设施。使用配备加速度计和 GPS 的两轮车收集数据。个性因素——感觉寻求和冒险——通过调查进行测量。常规通勤者使用三种自行车类型中的一种两周。通过允许参与者选择他们喜欢的自行车类型，故意纳入参与者偏差，结果有 12 名常规自行车骑手（71%为女性）、14 名电动助力自行车骑手（67%为女性）和 20 名 s-pedelec 骑手（25%为女性）。s-pedelec 比传统自行车快得多，城市地区的速度差异为 10.4km/h（M=28.2km/h 比 17.8km/h），农村地区的速度差异为 13.2km/h（M=31.4km/h 比 18.2km/h）。电动助力自行车和传统自行车之间的速度差异要小得多：城市地区为 2.3km/h（20.1km/h 比 17.8km/h），农村地区为 4km/h（22.2km/h 比 18.2km/h）。与传统自行车相比，s-pedelec 更频繁地调整速度，也更频繁地急刹车，显示出更大的速度调整需求。这些调整在更高的速度下更大。相比之下，电动助力自行车在速度变化方面与传统自行车没有差异。s-pedelec 骑手的 MSAL 因性别而异。对于男性，城市路段的 MSAL 为 87%，农村路段为 91%。对于女性，MSAL 分别为 23%和 69%。个性因素都与速度变异性、急刹车或 MSAL 无关。然而，感觉寻求与三种自行车类型的平均速度都有关。综上所述，电动助力自行车和传统自行车的速度模式相似，而 s-pedelec 的速度模式与前两者有显著差异。讨论了其安全影响。
