IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p7035-d295849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Difference in Night Visibility between Shared Bikes and Private Bikes during Night Cycling with Different Visibility Aids

Author

Listed:
  • Chengcheng Wu

    (School of transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China)

  • Dawei Chen

    (School of transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China)

Abstract

In recent years, bike sharing has increasingly spread across the world. Compared with personal bikes, shared bikes are uniform and have bright surfaces to help the public to find them easily. At the same time, unfamiliarity is still a problem for some users of shared bikes. Therefore, these features should be understood to improve the night visibility of cyclists and improve traffic safety. Our study tested and compared differences in night visibility using five types of visibility aids. The results showed two cognitive differences between cyclists and drivers. First, cyclists believed that using flashing lights or static lights would provide better visibility than other visibility aids. However, using a static light and reflectors showed better results in our research. Secondly, compared to private bikes, cyclists showed more confidence in the nighttime visibility of shared bikes, especially with retroreflective strips. But the behavior of drivers in our study did not support such differences. A post-experiment survey was conducted to explore such cognitive differences, and showed that unfamiliarity with these strips was a possible reason for driver unawareness. This study will aid policy makers in incorporating suitable visibility aids within bike-sharing programs. Further, this study includes helpful advice for cyclists in terms of improving their night visibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Chengcheng Wu & Dawei Chen, 2019. "The Difference in Night Visibility between Shared Bikes and Private Bikes during Night Cycling with Different Visibility Aids," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7035-:d:295849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7035/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7035/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frade, Ines & Ribeiro, Anabela, 2015. "Bike-sharing stations: A maximal covering location approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 216-227.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Danijela Tuljak-Suban & Patricija Bajec, 2022. "A Hybrid DEA Approach for the Upgrade of an Existing Bike-Sharing System with Electric Bikes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-23, October.

    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. Hyungkyoo Kim, 2020. "Seasonal Impacts of Particulate Matter Levels on Bike Sharing in Seoul, South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Giuffrida, Nadia & Pilla, Francesco & Carroll, Páraic, 2023. "The social sustainability of cycling: Assessing equity in the accessibility of bike-sharing services," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    3. Fukushige, Tatsuya & Fitch, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan, 2022. "Can an Incentive-Based approach to rebalancing a Dock-less Bike-share system Work? Evidence from Sacramento, California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 181-194.
    4. Mete Suleyman & Cil Zeynel Abidin & Özceylan Eren, 2018. "Location and Coverage Analysis of Bike- Sharing Stations in University Campus," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 80-95, July.
    5. Wu, Weitiao & Li, Yu, 2024. "Pareto truck fleet sizing for bike relocation with stochastic demand: Risk-averse multi-stage approximate stochastic programming," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    6. Neumann-Saavedra, Bruno Albert & Mattfeld, Dirk Christian & Hewitt, Mike, 2021. "Assessing the operational impact of tactical planning models for bike-sharing redistribution," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 216-235.
    7. Bruno Albert Neumann-Saavedra & Teodor Gabriel Crainic & Bernard Gendron & Dirk Christian Mattfeld & Michael Römer, 2020. "Integrating Resource Management in Service Network Design for Bike-Sharing Systems," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 1251-1271, September.
    8. Elżbieta Macioszek & Paulina Świerk & Agata Kurek, 2020. "The Bike-Sharing System as an Element of Enhancing Sustainable Mobility—A Case Study based on a City in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-29, April.
    9. Wojciech Keblowski & Frédéric Dobruszkes & Kobe Boussauw, 2022. "Moving past sustainable transport studies: Towards a critical perspective on urban transport," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/341191, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. İbrahim Miraç Eligüzel & Eren Özceylan & Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber, 2023. "Location-allocation analysis of humanitarian distribution plans: a case of United Nations Humanitarian Response Depots," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 324(1), pages 825-854, May.
    11. C. S. Shui & W. L. Chan, 2019. "Optimization of a Bikeway Network with Selective Nodes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-18, November.
    12. Mix, Richard & Hurtubia, Ricardo & Raveau, Sebastián, 2022. "Optimal location of bike-sharing stations: A built environment and accessibility approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 126-142.
    13. Chen, Qingxin & Ma, Shoufeng & Li, Hongming & Zhu, Ning & He, Qiao-Chu, 2024. "Optimizing bike rebalancing strategies in free-floating bike-sharing systems: An enhanced distributionally robust approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    15. Mora-Navarro, Gaspar & Femenia-Ribera, Carmen & Martinez-Llario, Jose & Antequera-Terroso, Enrique, 2018. "Optimising urban routes as a factor to favour sustainable school transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 211-217.
    16. Nkounga, Willy Magloire & Ndiaye, Mouhamadou Falilou & Cisse, Oumar & Grandvaux, Françoise & Tabourot, Laurent & Ndiaye, Mamadou Lamine, 2022. "Automatic control and dispatching of charging currents to a charging station for power-assisted bikes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    17. Shuo Zhang & Li Chen & Yingzi Li, 2021. "Shared Bicycle Distribution Connected to Subway Line Considering Citizens’ Morning Peak Social Characteristics for Urban Low-Carbon Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Yang, Xu-Hua & Cheng, Zhi & Chen, Guang & Wang, Lei & Ruan, Zhong-Yuan & Zheng, Yu-Jun, 2018. "The impact of a public bicycle-sharing system on urban public transport networks," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 246-256.
    19. Song, Jiatong & Li, Baicheng & Szeto, W.Y. & Zhan, Xingbin, 2024. "A station location design problem in a bike-sharing system with both conventional and electric shared bikes considering bike users’ roaming delay costs," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. Liang, Jyun-Kai & Eccarius, Timo & Lu, Chung-Cheng, 2019. "Investigating factors that affect the intention to use shared parking: A case study of Taipei City," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 799-812.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7035-:d:295849. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.