Comparing E-Bike Users’ Perceptions of Safety: The Case of Lausanne, Switzerland

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Electrically-assisted bicycles (E-bikes) may broaden cycling to a wider spectrum of users, territories, and trips. But what are e-bike users’ experiences of safety in a low-cycling city, and how do they vary among different users? This paper conceptualizes perceived safety based on vélomobility as the meeting point between users with specific characteristics (age, gender, etc.) and an environment more or less amenable to cycling. It is based on data from a survey of 1260 e-bike users who received a subsidy in Lausanne, Switzerland. We use 13 variables to measure perceived safety, finding 3 components: comfort for cycling in different situations, satisfaction with cycling conditions, and barriers to e-bike use. Based on these components, we identify four groups of e-bike users: (1) confident all-rounders, (2) recreational on-roaders, (3) worried traffic-avoiders and (4) unconfident path-users. We find gender and age to be the main factors associated with being a member of a group with lower perceived safety. Low weekly frequency of e-bike use, reduced winter e-bike use, and cycling for recreational trips exclusively also reduce perceived safety. Despite the benefits of electrical assistance compared to conventional bicycles, low safety due to unwelcoming road conditions remains a major concern for many e-bike users.

Related collections

Most cited references 65

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

Paul Slovic, Melissa L Finucane, Ellen Peters … (2004)

Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.