IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v173y2023ics0965856423001337.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cyclists perception and self-reported behaviour towards interacting with fully automated vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Xiaomeng
  • Pooyan Afghari, Amir
  • Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar
  • Kaye, Sherrie-Anne
  • Haworth, Narelle

Abstract

Fully automated vehicles (FAVs) have the potential to improve road safety and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. Most studies of acceptance of FAVs have focused on motor vehicle users, largely ignoring other road users, such as cyclists. This study investigates the factors that influence cyclists’ receptivity towards sharing roads with FAVs and their behavioural intentions in interactions with FAVs. The online survey collected information on participant demographics (e.g. age, gender, crash experience), self-reported on-road cycling behaviours (e.g. violations, errors, positive behaviours) and their receptivity towards sharing roads with FAVs (e.g. attitude, social norms, trust). Three typical cyclist-vehicle interaction scenarios were presented to test the cyclists’ intention to engage in self-protective behaviours (e.g. giving a hand signal, giving way or moving over) during the interaction with a FAV. Three hundred and fourteen Australian adults (106 females vs 208 males) who had ridden a bicycle at least once in the past year completed the survey. The results show that older cyclists and male cyclists had a lower receptivity towards sharing roads with FAVs than younger cyclists and female cyclists, respectively. Cyclists who reported being involved in a bicycle crash in the last two years and those who reported committing more errors on roads were more willing to share roads with FAVs. Cyclists who had a higher propensity to risky behaviours and positive behaviours were less likely to take intended self-protective behaviours during interaction with FAVs. Findings of the study provide some insights from the cyclist’s perspective to facilitate the development and implementation of automated vehicles.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Xiaomeng & Pooyan Afghari, Amir & Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar & Kaye, Sherrie-Anne & Haworth, Narelle, 2023. "Cyclists perception and self-reported behaviour towards interacting with fully automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:173:y:2023:i:c:s0965856423001337
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2023.103713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856423001337
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103713?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Penmetsa, Praveena & Adanu, Emmanuel Kofi & Wood, Dustin & Wang, Teng & Jones, Steven L., 2019. "Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles – A snapshot of vulnerable road user opinion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 9-13.
    2. Rachel Aldred, 2013. "Incompetent or Too Competent? Negotiating Everyday Cycling Identities in a Motor Dominated Society," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 252-271, May.
    3. Bhat, Chandra R. & Srinivasan, Sivaramakrishnan, 2005. "A multidimensional mixed ordered-response model for analyzing weekend activity participation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 255-278, March.
    4. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    5. Gabriele Prati & Víctor Marín Puchades & Marco De Angelis & Federico Fraboni & Luca Pietrantoni, 2018. "Factors contributing to bicycle–motorised vehicle collisions: a systematic literature review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 184-208, March.
    6. Sergio Useche & Luis Montoro & Francisco Alonso & Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, 2018. "Infrastructural and Human Factors Affecting Safety Outcomes of Cyclists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Peng Jing & Gang Xu & Yuexia Chen & Yuji Shi & Fengping Zhan, 2020. "The Determinants behind the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xing, Yingying & Zhou, Huiyu & Han, Xiao & Zhang, Meng & Lu, Jian, 2022. "What influences vulnerable road users’ perceptions of autonomous vehicles? A comparative analysis of the 2017 and 2019 Pittsburgh surveys," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Kum Fai Yuen & Ling Qian Choo & Xue Li & Yiik Diew Wong & Fei Ma & Xueqin Wang, 2023. "A theoretical investigation of user acceptance of autonomous public transport," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 545-569, April.
    3. Hwachyi Wang & S. K. Jason Chang & Hans De Backer & Dirk Lauwers & Philippe De Maeyer, 2019. "Integrating Spatial and Temporal Approaches for Explaining Bicycle Crashes in High-Risk Areas in Antwerp (Belgium)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-28, July.
    4. Hiroko Kamide, 2021. "The Effect of Social Cohesion on Interest, Usefulness, and Ease of Use of a Driving Assistance System in Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-11, October.
    5. Ieva Meidute-Kavaliauskiene & Bülent Yıldız & Şemsettin Çiğdem & Renata Činčikaitė, 2021. "Do People Prefer Cars That People Don’t Drive? A Survey Study on Autonomous Vehicles," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Md. Mokhlesur Rahman & Jean-Claude Thill, 2023. "What Drives People’s Willingness to Adopt Autonomous Vehicles? A Review of Internal and External Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-29, July.
    7. Dahlen Silva & Dávid Földes & Csaba Csiszár, 2021. "Autonomous Vehicle Use and Urban Space Transformation: A Scenario Building and Analysing Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Lovejoy, Kristin, 2012. "Mobility Fulfillment Among Low-car Households: Implications for Reducing Auto Dependence in the United States," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt4v44b5qn, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    9. Lindgren, Thomas & Pink, Sarah & Fors, Vaike, 2021. "Fore-sighting autonomous driving - An Ethnographic approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Weiss, Adam & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2017. "Examining the difference between park and ride and kiss and ride station choices using a spatially weighted error correlation (SWEC) discrete choice model," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 111-119.
    11. Yue Liu & Jun Chen & Weiguang Wu & Jiao Ye, 2019. "Typical Combined Travel Mode Choice Utility Model in Multimodal Transportation Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Selima Sultana & Hyojin Kim & Nastaran Pourebrahim & Firoozeh Karimi, 2018. "Geographical Assessment of Low-Carbon Transportation Modes: A Case Study from a Commuter University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-23, August.
    13. Xin-Wei Li & Hong-Zhi Miao, 2023. "How to Incorporate Autonomous Vehicles into the Carbon Neutrality Framework of China: Legal and Policy Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, March.
    14. Bhat, Chandra R., 2008. "The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: Role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 274-303, March.
    15. Foroughi, Behzad & Nhan, Pham Viet & Iranmanesh, Mohammad & Ghobakhloo, Morteza & Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh & Yadegaridehkordi, Elaheh, 2023. "Determinants of intention to use autonomous vehicles: Findings from PLS-SEM and ANFIS," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    16. Filip Filipović & Dušan Mladenović & Krsto Lipovac & Dillip Kumar Das & Bojana Todosijević, 2022. "Determining Risk Factors That Influence Cycling Crash Severity, for the Purpose of Setting Sustainable Cycling Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    17. Chiarello, Filippo & Fantoni, Gualtiero & Hogarth, Terence & Giordano, Vito & Baltina, Liga & Spada, Irene, 2021. "Towards ESCO 4.0 – Is the European classification of skills in line with Industry 4.0? A text mining approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Popan, Cosmin & Anaya-Boig, Esther, 2021. "The intersectional precarity of platform cycle delivery workers," SocArXiv tk6v8, Center for Open Science.
    19. Gackstetter, David & von Bloh, Malte & Hannus, Veronika & Meyer, Sebastian T. & Weisser, Wolfgang & Luksch, Claudia & Asseng, Senthold, 2023. "Autonomous field management – An enabler of sustainable future in agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    20. Laura S. Fruhen & Patrick Benetti & Lisette Kanse & Isabel Rossen, 2023. "Why Not Pedal for the Planet? The Role of Perceived Norms for Driver Aggression as a Deterrent to Cycling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-14, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:173:y:2023:i:c:s0965856423001337. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.