Center for Cognitive Science, Freiburg University, Hebelstr. 10, 79104 Freiburg, Germany.
Fakultät Verkehrswissenschaften "Friedrich List", Institut für Verkehrsplanung und Straßenverkehr, Technische Universität Dresden, Hettnerstr.1, 01069 Dresden, Germany.
Accid Anal Prev. 2022 Jan;164:106470. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106470. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
Most research concerned with cyclists' safety has been focused on the crash risk (i.e. their objective safety). However, there has been a growing interest in the perceived level of this risk (i.e. the subjective safety of cyclists). Crash risk and subjective risk perception in urban cycling appear to be mostly well aligned. For example, reduced speed limits have been found to reduce both objective and subjective risks (although there is also evidence for some incongruences). This absolute number of incidents could be misleading, as it does not account for potential differences in cycling volume (i.e. cyclists are likely to prefer streets with reduced speed limits). Thus, it may be important to adjust the absolute number of incidents relative number to the local cycling volume. In this research, we investigate the relation of cycling crashes and subjective risk perception (operationalized through reports from a crowd-sourcing project) for different types of cycling infrastructure and different speed limits, while accounting for the local cycling volume. We find that the absolute number of VGI reports and crashes can be misleading: whereas the absolute incident numbers, for example, suggest few benefits of cycling lanes and tracks, adjusting for the cycling volume reveals an increase of both objective and subjective safety as compared to streets without cycling infrastructure. We also identify situations where cyclists apparently underestimate the crash risk (i.e. on cycleways opposing the cars' traveling direction, and at streets with a speed limit of 30 km/h intersecting streets with higher speed limits). Additional research is required to understand the sources of these discrepancies, and how to make cyclists aware of them.
大多数关于自行车骑行者安全的研究都集中在碰撞风险上（即客观安全）。然而，人们对感知到的风险水平（即自行车骑行者的主观安全）越来越感兴趣。城市自行车骑行中的碰撞风险和主观风险感知似乎高度一致。例如，降低限速被发现可以降低客观和主观风险（尽管也有一些不一致的证据）。事故的绝对数量可能会产生误导，因为它没有考虑到潜在的自行车流量差异（即自行车骑行者可能更喜欢限速降低的街道）。因此，可能需要根据当地的自行车流量来调整绝对事故数量的相对数量。在这项研究中，我们调查了不同类型的自行车基础设施和不同限速下的自行车碰撞和主观风险感知（通过众包项目的报告来操作化）之间的关系，同时考虑了当地的自行车流量。我们发现，绝对数量的 VGI 报告和事故可能会产生误导：虽然绝对事故数量表明自行车道和自行车专用道几乎没有好处，但根据自行车流量进行调整后，与没有自行车基础设施的街道相比，客观和主观安全都有所提高。我们还发现了一些自行车骑行者明显低估碰撞风险的情况（例如，在与汽车行驶方向相反的自行车道上，以及在限速 30 公里/小时的街道上与限速更高的街道相交的地方）。需要进一步的研究来理解这些差异的来源，以及如何让自行车骑行者意识到这些差异。
