Communication of bicyclists with car drivers and safety critical - - PDF document

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Communication of bicyclists with car drivers and safety critical events

Christine Chaloupka-Risser Elisabeth Füssl

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Bicyclists face a high accident risk

• Safety:

– 138,400 pedestrians & cyclists killed in EU 2001 - 2013. – 29% of all road deaths across EU (pedestrians: 21%, cyclists: 8%) – Slower decrease rate of deaths of unprotected road users than for motor vehicle users (ETSC 2015) :

• vehicle occupants: 53%
• pedestrians: 41%,
• cyclists: 37%
• Cycling is an increasingly popular alternative transport

mode, but there are many cycling fatalities over the past decade (IRTAD) How can traffic safety for bicyclists be enhanced?

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Main focus

According to findings of studies till now cycle safety policies should pay close attention to

• Speed reduction of motorists
• Harmonization of speed of different road users
• Intersection design - key design principles:

– visibility – predictability – support of ability to communicate

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Topics of the presentation

Austrian research project BIKEALYZE

• naturalistic riding study in the cities of Vienna and Salzburg

Theoretical framework:

• definition of safety critical events
• role of communication

Data will be gained by

• mobile eye tracking
• GPS-based motion data, acceleration and steering direction
• video

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

BIKEALYZE - naturalistic cycling study

Aim

• better understanding of critical situations and

communication processes between bicyclists and car drivers and their effects Results:

• Identify and evaluate safety-critical events in relation to

cycling infrastructure. Hypothesis:

• Infrastructure influences:

– willingness and predictions for communication between all road users: e. g. intersection design should enhance the visibility of cyclists.

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Partners 2015-2016

Financed by the Austrian Ministry of Transportation In the frame of „Mobility of the future“ Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Factum Chaloupka & Risser OG PlanSinn – Büro für Planung und Kommunikation GmbH PRISMA solutions EDV-Dienstleistungen GmbH Universität Salzburg, Interfakultärer Fachbereich für Geoinformatik – Z_GIS

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Theoretical framework

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Safety critical events

Safety criticsl events in traffic

• Arise in the frame of coaction of between persons and

environment

• Occur mainly by chance
• Contain aspects of both safety and comfort:

– a) subjective feeling of safety: fear of accidents (related to man) – b) usability problems (related to infrastructure)

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Comfort and safety

Comfort = positive emotional reaction because of exterior conditions/conditions of the environment Influencing factors of comfort = satisfaction of:

• Physiological needs: enough space and light,

surface of pavement?

• Needs of safety: sufficient subjective safety, time

to cross an intersection before turning cars etc.?

• Cognitive needs: sufficient support for orientation

and communication? Understand where to go?

• Aesthetical needs: pleasent design? Dirt / ice etc.

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Distinction – objective/subjective

!! It is necessary to distinquish between – Perception of persons regarding safety and accessibility and – Objective situation: data about accidents/safety, accessibility etc. Both levels do not necessarily match (e.g. everyday riders, children, parents with children, elderly etc.) Have to be considered and surveyed seperately with different qualitative & quantitative methods

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Problematic communication

Objective and subjective problematic situations:

• Car drivers honking the horn to get cyclists out of their

way = sign for disrespect

• Cycle infrastructure (and view) obstructed by (parked)

cars & generally „non-observance “ by vehicle drivers

• Being pressed by car drivers
• Necessity to compensate ruthlessness of vehicle drivers

Feeling of being inferior and underprivileged in relation to car drivers. less comfortable

Source: Austrian Science Fund (Project n° P 26192 – G22) „Interaction between cyclists and car drivers“; in depth interview data. September 2014 - April 2015

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Communication – what for?

• Communication is essential in traffic in order to

inform other road users

• To coordinate actions.
• To give feedback
• Understand others´ needs

Necessary precondition: The other person must be perceived

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Our focus

• Registration of communication aspects,

methods

• Relations between infrastructure and

communication Cyclists equipped with specific tools provide naturalistic riding data

• The tools: see below

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Equipped bicycle & rider

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Equipped bicycle and rider

Tobii Smart Eye Tracking Glasses

GoPro Camera Smart-phones for GPS & Gyro-data, route-tracking

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

First Results from Pre-Tests Video- and eye tracking based

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

#1 „Interaction“ – no motorists Defined Areas of Interest (AOI)

Mapping of „dynamic“ AOIs (cyclist and pedestrian) within a more or less static scenery and low traffic speed; infrastructure = hardware

Ped

Other cyclist

Infrastructur e pavement, bridge

Infrastructure, pavement

Where to go

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

#1 „Interaction“ Gaze-Plot

Gaze-Plots show the direction of eye movements and gaze time Total riding and gazing time – sum of all gazes within 4,44 sec

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

#1 „Interaction“ Heat-Map

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

#2 „Intersection“ – with motorists Defined Areas of Interest

At intersections elements of infrastructure (zebra crossings and traffic lights) = elements for orientation and decision where to ride on and high speed traffic Infrastructure Zebra #1

Infrastructure Zebra #2

Traffic

Infrastructure Traffic light Where to go r1

Folie 20 r1

ralf; 22.03.2016

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Total riding and gazing time – sum of all gazes within 1,92 sec Gazes mainly to the left side and the middle pat of the road

#2 „Intersection“ Gaze-Plot

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

#2 „Intersection“ Heat-Map

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Examples of discomfort and unsafety safety critical events

• … infrastructure used

for purpose other than intended

• … infrastructure too narrow

and used for purpose other than intended

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Support for orientation (?)

Where to go? Bad practice Good practice

If orientation absorbes too much time and energy no time for communication with

• ther road users safety

critical event

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Results useful for…

• Car drivers’ training
• Training of bicycle riders
• Recommendations for the design of bicycle

infrastructure

• Input for road safety awareness campaigns
• Target groups: organizations and persons

concerned with cycling infrastructure planning as well as cyclists’ interest groups (NGOs).

ICTCT, extra-

• rdinary

workshop, Beijing April 2016

Thank you for your attention! 谢谢

christine.chaloupka@factum.at www.factum.at +431 5041546

lillibeth2.files.wordpress.com