Center for Cognitive Science, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Hebelstr. 10, 79104 Freiburg, Germany.
FixMyCity GmbH, Karlsgartenstraße 12, 12049 Berlin, Germany.
Accid Anal Prev. 2022 Mar;167:106577. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2022.106577. Epub 2022 Feb 2.
There is ample evidence that adequate cycling infrastructure increases cyclists' safety. There is less research to what extent the specific design of cycling lanes affects subjective safety. We address this question by analysing data from a large-scale online survey, where participants rated images illustrating a wide range of cycling infrastructure designs for the anticipated level of subjective safety when imagining to cycle at the displayed location. Cycling tracks are perceived as safer than cycling lanes, which in turn are preferred over cycling on the street. Physical separations from the car lane, a greater lane width, and a coloured surface contribute most to a high subjective safety of cycling lanes. Additional buffers on the left- and right side of cycling lanes can have varying effects. On narrower cycling lanes, people experience extensive buffer designs as rather constraining and as impairing their safety. Combining several safety features (i.e. a sufficient demarcation of the left buffer and a coloured surface) is not necessarily beneficial for subjective safety. Our findings are mostly in line with findings on the factors benefitting or impairing objective safety. However, the relation of subjective and objective safety requires further attention.
有充分的证据表明,充足的自行车基础设施可以提高骑车者的安全性。但是,对于自行车道的具体设计在多大程度上影响主观安全性,相关研究还比较少。我们通过分析一项大规模在线调查的数据来解决这个问题,该调查要求参与者对展示的各种自行车道设计图像进行主观安全性评估,评估他们在想象中在展示地点骑车时的预期安全性。自行车道被认为比自行车道更安全,而自行车道又比在街道上骑车更受欢迎。与汽车道物理隔离、更宽的车道宽度和彩色表面对提高自行车道的主观安全性贡献最大。自行车道左右两侧的附加缓冲区可能会产生不同的影响。在较窄的自行车道上,人们会觉得宽阔的缓冲区设计会限制他们的行动,降低他们的安全感。将多个安全功能(如充分划分左侧缓冲区和使用彩色表面)结合起来并不一定能提高主观安全性。我们的研究结果与影响客观安全性的因素的研究结果基本一致。然而,主观安全性和客观安全性之间的关系还需要进一步关注。