Drivers’ and cyclists’ experiences of sharing the road: Incidents, attitudes and perceptions of visibility

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.014Get rights and content

Abstract

This study explored the beliefs and attitudes of cyclists and drivers regarding cyclist visibility, use of visibility aids and crashes involving cyclists and motorists. Data are presented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there are high rates of cyclist–vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to the driver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision. A divergence in attitudes was also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist–vehicle conflicts on the road. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected in self-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which they would be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers. Collectively, these results suggest that interventions should target cyclists’ use of visibility aids, which is less than optimal in this population, as well as re-educating both groups regarding visibility issues.

Introduction

Cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users, both in terms of the likelihood of being involved in a crash, and the consequences that result from even minor crashes involving a cyclist (as proposed by Rowe et al., 1995). The average probability of a cyclist being seriously injured if involved in a crash was found to be almost 27% in data collected across four Australian states over a 4-year period (Watson and Cameron, 2006). Cyclists have among the largest proportion of self-reported near-miss crashes, significantly higher than that of motorists, and comparable to that of pedestrians, observed to be as high as one incident every 5.59 miles (Joshi et al., 2001), which has been cited as a major reason why people choose not to cycle in traffic (Daley et al., 2007, Joshi et al., 2001).

A consistent finding is that drivers do not detect cyclists until it is too late to avoid a collision (Kwan and Mapstone, 2004, Räsänen and Summala, 1998). In particular, a proportion of crashes between vehicles and cyclists have been identified as “looked-but-failed-to-see” crashes (Herslund and Jorgensen, 2003), where the driver of the vehicle failed to detect the cyclist in time to prevent the crash, even though they reported that they correctly looked in the direction of the cyclist. A similar finding was demonstrated for motorcyclists in an in-depth study of 1000 crashes (Clarke et al., 2004). Late detection of cyclists suggests that their visibility on the road may be an important contributing factor to their crash involvement. “Looked-but-failed-to-see” crashes suggest shortcomings in driver attention processes (as proposed by Brown, 2005), or an expectancy effect (only scanning for cars, as proposed by Clarke et al., 2004 in relation to motorcyclists).

Increased visibility of cyclists may reduce the number of crashes caused by drivers who exhibit inadequate visual scanning behaviours while at non-traffic light controlled intersections. Cyclists riding against traffic are particularly vulnerable to collisions at such intersections, especially for vehicles turning from a street perpendicular to the cyclists’ path (Hunter et al., 1995, Summala et al., 1996). Drivers at intersections visually scan to avoid collisions with vehicles, but this scanning strategy might miss visual cues regarding less frequent and less imminent dangers, such as a cyclist approaching from the side (Summala et al., 1996). Cyclists that are made more visually salient by way of increased conspicuity might be more easily recognised, and subsequently avoided, by drivers when scanning the road scene.

Research has shown that increasing the use of visibility aids may improve the ability of drivers to recognise cyclists, as well as pedestrians, and that the ability of drivers to respond in time is greater when cyclists or pedestrians make use of visibility aids (Kwan and Mapstone, 2004). Increased cyclist visibility can have important implications regarding the severity of injuries suffered in the event of a crash. After adjusting for potential confounds and level of exposure (i.e., kilometres ridden per year), the number of days off work following a bicycle crash injury was found to be substantially lower among cyclists who reported that they always wore high visibility clothing (Thornley et al., 2008). Increasing the visibility of cyclists is especially important when considering low-light conditions. In his examination of fatal bicycle crashes in Victoria (Australia), Hoque (1990) noted that although a greater proportion of all fatal bicycle crashes were initiated by the cyclists themselves, in 90% of night-time crashes the cyclist was hit by an overtaking motorist. However, while cyclists are generally well informed regarding the need to wear high visibility clothing, and are aware of the benefits of visibility aids such as reflective vests and lights, they do not use such aids on a regular basis (Hagel et al., 2007). It is possible, therefore, that cyclists do overestimate their own visibility, both with and without visibility aids, as has been demonstrated for pedestrians (Tyrrell et al., 2004), which would form a potential barrier to the encouragement of the use of visibility aids. Gathering data on attitudes and awareness of visibility is therefore an important first step in addressing these barriers.

The present research aimed to identify, among a sample of regular cyclists and drivers, the rate of self-reported incidents involving drivers and cyclists (in terms of crashes or near-miss crashes) attributable to poor visibility, as well as the attitudes of both groups toward one another. We specifically examined the cyclists’ and drivers’ beliefs about the importance of visibility aids for cyclists on the road, and the cyclists’ self-reported behaviour in terms of the frequency of use of visibility aids. In addition, we asked both cyclists and drivers to make estimates of the distance at which a cyclist would be visible to an oncoming driver.

Section snippets

Participants

Drivers and cyclists were recruited to participate in a survey via various Australia-based cycling and driving websites and forums dedicated to road safety. The survey was available online and also distributed in hard copy format around university campuses (driver survey), and to bicycle shops and cycling clubs in the greater Brisbane area, Queensland, Australia (cycling survey). The survey was also publicised in statewide, regional and university newspapers as well as in an issue of the

Demographics

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics and experience on the road for the drivers and cyclists in this study. The age range of drivers and cyclists was similar, although there was a tendency for more cyclists to be in the 30–50 age group, χ2 (6) = 37.406, p < .001. Cyclists were more likely to be male (76%), χ2 (1) = 147.38, p < .001, and were more likely to have less than 10 years experience on the road, and considerably less likely to have more than 20 years experience χ2 (4) = 637.50, p < .001.

Discussion

Among a general driving and cycling population, largely surveyed over the internet, we observed some important differences in the perceptions and attitudes of cyclists and drivers in the community. Cyclists were at significant risk of being involved in a crash or a near miss. Cyclists also report more crashes and near misses than do drivers, which may be partly attributed to the differential opportunities afforded by the fact that a cyclist is likely to encounter a large number of motor

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant.

References (16)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (101)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text