IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p1614-d492290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Not as Safe as I Believed”: Differences in Perceived and Self-Reported Cycling Behavior between Riders and Non-Riders

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio A. Useche

    (DATS (Development and Advising in Traffic Safety) Research Group, INTRAS (Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety), University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

  • Javier Gene-Morales

    (DATS (Development and Advising in Traffic Safety) Research Group, INTRAS (Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety), University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
    PHES (Prevention and Health in Sport and Exercise) Research Group, University of Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain)

  • Felix W. Siebert

    (Department of Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany)

  • Francisco Alonso

    (DATS (Development and Advising in Traffic Safety) Research Group, INTRAS (Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety), University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

  • Luis Montoro

    (FACTHUM.Lab (Human Factor and Road Safety) Research Group, INTRAS (Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety), University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain)

Abstract

Cycling behavior remains a key issue for explaining several traffic causalities occurring every day. However, recent studies have shown how the assessment of the own safety-related behaviors on the road may substantially differ from how third parties assess them. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the differences between cyclists’ self-reported behavior and the proxy-reported behavior that other (non-cyclist) road users perceive from bike riders. For this purpose, this study used data from two samples: ( i ) 1064 cyclists ( M = 32.83 years) answering the Cycling Behavior Questionnaire—CBQ, and ( ii ) 1070 non-cyclists ( M = 30.83 years) answering an adapted version of the CBQ for external raters—ECBQ. The results show how the self-reported and proxy-reported behaviors of cyclists greatly differ in terms of all behavioral factors composing the CBQ model, i.e., traffic violations, riding errors, and positive behaviors. Also, external raters (non-cyclists) are those targeting significantly riskier behaviors than those self-reported by cyclists. These discrepancies between perceived behaviors may give rise to conflicting viewpoints on the interaction between bicycle riders and other road users. Therefore, this study underscores the importance of behavioral awareness, providing highlights for future studies on the behavioral interaction between cyclists and other road users. Results can be used to improve the road safety of all road users by giving indications on self-and proxy-perceived safety-related behaviors and visibility of protective riding habits.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio A. Useche & Javier Gene-Morales & Felix W. Siebert & Francisco Alonso & Luis Montoro, 2021. "“Not as Safe as I Believed”: Differences in Perceived and Self-Reported Cycling Behavior between Riders and Non-Riders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:1614-:d:492290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/1614/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/1614/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beirão, Gabriela & Sarsfield Cabral, J.A., 2007. "Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 478-489, November.
    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. Margarita Martínez-Díaz & Rosa Arroyo, 2023. "Is Cycling Safe? Does It Look like It? Insights from Helsinki and Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Panagiotis G. Tzouras & Lambros Mitropoulos & Katerina Koliou & Eirini Stavropoulou & Christos Karolemeas & Eleni Antoniou & Antonis Karaloulis & Konstantinos Mitropoulos & Eleni I. Vlahogianni & Kons, 2023. "Describing Micro-Mobility First/Last-Mile Routing Behavior in Urban Road Networks through a Novel Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, February.

    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. Dacko, Scott G. & Spalteholz, Carolin, 2014. "Upgrading the city: Enabling intermodal travel behaviour," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 222-235.
    2. Alessandro Vitale & Giuseppe Guido & Daniele Rogano, 2016. "A smartphone based DSS platform for assessing transit service attributes," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 315-340, September.
    3. Colin Pooley, 2016. "Mobility, Transport and Social Inclusion: Lessons from History," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 100-109.
    4. Cats, Oded & Jenelius, Erik, 2015. "Planning for the unexpected: The value of reserve capacity for public transport network robustness," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 47-61.
    5. David P. Ashmore & Roselle Thoreau & Corina Kwami & Nicola Christie & Nicholas A. Tyler, 2020. "Using thematic analysis to explore symbolism in transport choice across national cultures," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 607-640, April.
    6. Chica-Olmo, Jorge & Gachs-Sánchez, Héctor & Lizarraga, Carmen, 2018. "Route effect on the perception of public transport services quality," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 40-48.
    7. Jaroslav Burian & Lenka Zajíčková & Igor Ivan & Karel Macků, 2018. "Attitudes and Motivation to Use Public or Individual Transport: A Case Study of Two Middle-Sized Cities," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-25, May.
    8. Vigren, Andreas & Pyddoke, Roger, 2020. "The impact on bus ridership of passenger incentive contracts in public transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 144-159.
    9. Chandra, Shailesh & Jimenez, Jose & Radhakrishnan, Ramalingam, 2017. "Accessibility evaluations for nighttime walking and bicycling for low-income shift workers," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 97-108.
    10. Huang, Guobin & Zhang, Jie & Yu, Jian & Shi, Xunpeng, 2020. "Impact of transportation infrastructure on industrial pollution in Chinese cities: A spatial econometric analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    11. Delbosc, Alexa & Nakanishi, Hitomi, 2017. "A life course perspective on the travel of Australian millennials," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 319-336.
    12. Buys, Laurie & Miller, Evonne, 2011. "Conceptualising convenience: Transportation practices and perceptions of inner-urban high density residents in Brisbane, Australia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 289-297, January.
    13. Nielsen, Jesper Riber & Hovmøller, Harald & Blyth, Pascale-L. & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2015. "Of “white crows” and “cash savers:” A qualitative study of travel behavior and perceptions of ridesharing in Denmark," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 113-123.
    14. Magalhães, David José Ahouagi Vaz de & Rivera-Gonzalez, Carlos, 2021. "Car users’ attitudes towards an enhanced bus system to mitigate urban congestion in a developing country," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 452-464.
    15. Li, Hao & Gao, Kun & Tu, Huizhao, 2017. "Variations in mode-specific valuations of travel time reliability and in-vehicle crowding: Implications for demand estimation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 250-263.
    16. Papadima, Georgia & Genitsaris, Evangelos & Karagiotas, Ioannis & Naniopoulos, Aristotelis & Nalmpantis, Dimitrios, 2020. "Investigation of acceptance of driverless buses in the city of Trikala and optimization of the service using Conjoint Analysis," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    17. Ashmore, David P. & Pojani, Dorina & Thoreau, Roselle & Christie, Nicola & Tyler, Nicholas A., 2019. "Gauging differences in public transport symbolism across national cultures: implications for policy development and transfer," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 26-38.
    18. Celik, Erkan & Aydin, Nezir & Gumus, Alev Taskin, 2014. "A multiattribute customer satisfaction evaluation approach for rail transit network: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 283-293.
    19. Zahra Navidi & Nicole Ronald & Stephan Winter, 2018. "Comparison between ad-hoc demand responsive and conventional transit: a simulation study," Public Transport, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 147-167, May.
    20. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00827972 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Xiao Han & Yun Yu & Bin Jia & Zi‐You Gao & Rui Jiang & H. Michael Zhang, 2021. "Coordination Behavior in Mode Choice: Laboratory Study of Equilibrium Transformation and Selection," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(10), pages 3635-3656, October.

    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:13:y:2021:i:4:p:1614-:d:492290. 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.