Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 130 Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Australia.
Accid Anal Prev. 2021 Mar;152:105981. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.105981. Epub 2021 Feb 4.
Electric scooter (e-scooter) use has increased internationally, with concerns about injuries to riders and pedestrians, and reports of non-use of helmets, excessive speed, drink-riding and underage riding. E-scooter regulations vary widely among jurisdictions, with likely effects on the extent and nature of safety issues. This study was conducted in downtown Brisbane, Australia, where e-scooters must be ridden on the footpath, bicycles are allowed on the road and the footpath, and helmet use is mandatory for bicycle and e-scooter riders of all ages. It examined involvement in illegal and risky behaviours, and interactions with pedestrians. Shared and private e-scooters, and shared and private bicycles were compared to assess the relative influences of type of vehicle and shared use. Observations at six sites in downtown Brisbane in February 2019 recorded 711 shared e-scooters, 90 private e-scooters, 274 shared bicycles and 2788 private bicycles. Illegal riding (not wearing a helmet, riding on the road, or carrying a passenger) was more prevalent among shared than private e-scooters (49.6 % vs. 12.2 %). Non-use of helmets was more common among riders of shared e-scooters (38.6 %, OR = 20.995, p < .001) and shared bicycles (18.8 %, OR = 10.994, p < .001) than private bicycles (1.5 %); occurred more often on the footpath than the road (20.1 % vs. 1.8 %, OR = 3.004, p < .001); and occurred more between 2 and 4 pm than between 7 and 9a.m. (21.3 % vs. 5.5 %, OR = 1.711, p < .01). More than 90 % of e-scooters, about half of shared bicycles and about a quarter of private bicycles were ridden on the footpath, with about 40 % within 1 m of at least one pedestrian. When there were pedestrians within 1 m, conflict rates ranged from zero to 1.5 % and no collisions were observed. At least for helmet non-use, the results suggest that risky behaviours are more prevalent among users of shared schemes, and that this difference is accentuated for e-scooters. Interactions with pedestrians are common but conflicts rarely occur in footpath riding. Further observational and survey studies are recommended to better understand the factors influencing the perceptions and behaviours of shared and private e-scooters and pedestrians. The knowledge gained from these studies needs to be integrated with injury outcome data to determine the appropriateness of rules for maximum speeds and locations of riding in terms of both rider and pedestrian safety.
电动滑板车(e-scooter)在国际上的使用越来越多,人们对骑手和行人受伤的问题表示担忧,也有报道称有人不戴头盔、超速行驶、酒后骑车和未成年人骑车。不同司法管辖区的电动滑板车法规差异很大,这可能会对安全问题的程度和性质产生影响。本研究在澳大利亚布里斯班市中心进行,在那里,电动滑板车必须在人行道上行驶,自行车可以在道路和人行道上行驶,所有年龄的自行车和电动滑板车骑手都必须戴头盔。该研究调查了非法和高风险行为的参与情况,以及与行人的互动情况。共享和私人电动滑板车以及共享和私人自行车被进行了比较,以评估车辆类型和共享使用的相对影响。2019 年 2 月在布里斯班市中心的六个地点进行的观察记录了 711 辆共享电动滑板车、90 辆私人电动滑板车、274 辆共享自行车和 2788 辆私人自行车。与私人电动滑板车(12.2%)相比,共享电动滑板车(49.6%)更常见不戴头盔、在道路上行驶或载人的非法骑行行为。不戴头盔的情况在共享电动滑板车(38.6%,OR=20.995,p<.001)和共享自行车(18.8%,OR=10.994,p<.001)的骑手比私人自行车(1.5%)更为常见;在人行道上比在道路上更为常见(20.1%比 1.8%,OR=3.004,p<.001);在下午 2 点至 4 点之间比上午 7 点至 9 点之间更为常见(21.3%比 5.5%,OR=1.711,p<.01)。超过 90%的电动滑板车、大约一半的共享自行车和大约四分之一的私人自行车在人行道上行驶,大约 40%的车辆距离至少一名行人 1 米以内。当 1 米内有行人时,冲突率从 0 到 1.5%不等,没有观察到碰撞。至少在不戴头盔方面,研究结果表明,共享计划的使用者更倾向于采取高风险行为,而且对于电动滑板车来说,这种差异更为明显。与行人的互动很常见,但在人行道上骑行时很少发生冲突。建议进行更多的观察和调查研究,以更好地了解共享和私人电动滑板车和行人的行为和感知的影响因素。从这些研究中获得的知识需要与伤害结果数据相结合,以确定根据骑手和行人的安全,最大速度和骑行地点的规则是否合适。