Too close for cycling comfort? Social and physical contributors to subjective cycling safety in the context of overtaking: Results from a mixed-methods study combining data from OpenBikeSensors, the SimRa app, and qualitative interviews

IF 2.7 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Jennifer Bosen, Annika Herberg, Carmella Pfaffenbach, Carmen Leicht-Scholten
{"title":"Too close for cycling comfort? Social and physical contributors to subjective cycling safety in the context of overtaking: Results from a mixed-methods study combining data from OpenBikeSensors, the SimRa app, and qualitative interviews","authors":"Jennifer Bosen,&nbsp;Annika Herberg,&nbsp;Carmella Pfaffenbach,&nbsp;Carmen Leicht-Scholten","doi":"10.1016/j.urbmob.2025.100123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cycling is a central component of the mobility transition towards a sustainable mobility culture. While existing research on cycling largely focuses on transport infrastructure, the influence of subjective safety as a key factor in the decision to cycle remains understudied.</div><div>This study contributes to the growing body of research on subjective safety in cycling, presenting findings from an explorative, mixed-methods, inter- and transdisciplinary examination of subjective safety in the context of overtaking of cyclists in Aachen, Germany. Ten participants (gender-balanced, non-disabled, white, German, with a mix of ages, household sizes, and care responsibilities), were equipped with OpenBikeSensors (OBS) and the SimRa (German acronym for ‘safety in bicycle traffic’) app to measure overtaking distances and track incidents such as near misses. The individual OBS and SimRa data maps were then used as prompts in problem-centred qualitative interviews, which were analysed following qualitative content analysis and contextualised with the OBS and SimRa data.</div><div>Results show that factors contributing to subjective cycling safety are highly individualised and multifaceted. Beyond physical vulnerability, subjective cycling safety includes factors of social vulnerability. The mitigation of factors contributing to subjective safety can be a route to cycling resilience and cycling agency. Planning for a cycling-friendly mobility culture requires addressing aspects related to transport equity and inclusion, particularly in relation to social vulnerability, in order to improve subjective cycling safety. Inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, and mixed-method analyses, can generate scientific results to support and inform policy and practice, ultimately increasing the relevance of research results for sustainable transport planning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100852,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Mobility","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100123"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Mobility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667091725000251","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cycling is a central component of the mobility transition towards a sustainable mobility culture. While existing research on cycling largely focuses on transport infrastructure, the influence of subjective safety as a key factor in the decision to cycle remains understudied.
This study contributes to the growing body of research on subjective safety in cycling, presenting findings from an explorative, mixed-methods, inter- and transdisciplinary examination of subjective safety in the context of overtaking of cyclists in Aachen, Germany. Ten participants (gender-balanced, non-disabled, white, German, with a mix of ages, household sizes, and care responsibilities), were equipped with OpenBikeSensors (OBS) and the SimRa (German acronym for ‘safety in bicycle traffic’) app to measure overtaking distances and track incidents such as near misses. The individual OBS and SimRa data maps were then used as prompts in problem-centred qualitative interviews, which were analysed following qualitative content analysis and contextualised with the OBS and SimRa data.
Results show that factors contributing to subjective cycling safety are highly individualised and multifaceted. Beyond physical vulnerability, subjective cycling safety includes factors of social vulnerability. The mitigation of factors contributing to subjective safety can be a route to cycling resilience and cycling agency. Planning for a cycling-friendly mobility culture requires addressing aspects related to transport equity and inclusion, particularly in relation to social vulnerability, in order to improve subjective cycling safety. Inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, and mixed-method analyses, can generate scientific results to support and inform policy and practice, ultimately increasing the relevance of research results for sustainable transport planning.
太近了,骑自行车不舒服?在超车的情况下,社会和身体因素对主观骑行安全的影响:一项混合方法研究的结果,结合了openbikessensors、SimRa应用程序和定性访谈的数据
自行车是向可持续交通文化过渡的核心组成部分。虽然现有的骑行研究主要集中在交通基础设施上,但主观安全作为骑行决策的关键因素的影响仍未得到充分研究。本研究为不断增长的自行车主观安全研究做出了贡献,展示了在德国亚琛骑自行车者超车的背景下,对主观安全进行的探索性、混合方法、跨学科的研究结果。10名参与者(性别均衡,非残疾人,白人,德国人,年龄,家庭规模和护理责任各不相同)配备了openbikessensors (OBS)和SimRa(德语“自行车交通安全”的首字母缩略词)应用程序,以测量超车距离并跟踪事故,如未遂事件。然后,在以问题为中心的定性访谈中,将个人的OBS和SimRa数据图用作提示,并根据定性内容分析和OBS和SimRa数据进行分析。结果表明,影响主观骑行安全的因素具有高度的个体化和多面性。主观骑行安全除了身体脆弱性外,还包括社会脆弱性因素。缓解影响主观安全的因素可以成为提高骑行弹性和骑行能动性的途径。规划骑行友好型交通文化需要解决与交通公平和包容相关的问题,特别是与社会脆弱性相关的问题,以提高主观骑行安全性。跨学科和跨学科合作以及混合方法分析可以产生科学结果,为政策和实践提供支持和信息,最终提高研究结果与可持续交通规划的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信