Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
The Difference in Night Visibility between Shared
Bikes and Private Bikes during Night Cycling with
Different Visibility Aids
Chengcheng Wu and Dawei Chen *
School of transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China; 230179239@seu.edu.cn
*Correspondence: dw_chen@seu.edu.cn
Received: 24 October 2019; Accepted: 27 November 2019; Published: 9 December 2019
Abstract:
In recent years, bike sharing has increasingly spread across the world. Compared with
personal bikes, shared bikes are uniform and have bright surfaces to help the public to find them
easily. At the same time, unfamiliarity is still a problem for some users of shared bikes. Therefore,
these features should be understood to improve the night visibility of cyclists and improve traffic
safety. Our study tested and compared differences in night visibility using five types of visibility aids.
The results showed two cognitive differences between cyclists and drivers. First, cyclists believed
that using flashing lights or static lights would provide better visibility than other visibility aids.
However, using a static light and reflectors showed better results in our research. Secondly, compared
to private bikes, cyclists showed more confidence in the nighttime visibility of shared bikes, especially
with retroreflective strips. But the behavior of drivers in our study did not support such differences.
A post-experiment survey was conducted to explore such cognitive differences, and showed that
unfamiliarity with these strips was a possible reason for driver unawareness. This study will aid
policy makers in incorporating suitable visibility aids within bike-sharing programs. Further, this
study includes helpful advice for cyclists in terms of improving their night visibility.
Keywords:
bike share; cycling safety; night-time visibility; cognitive difference between cyclists
and drivers
1. Introduction
In recent years, bike sharing has increasingly spread across the world, with approximately
800 bike-sharing programs available in 2015 [
1
]. According to 2017 data from the local government in
Nanjing (China), the annual growth rate of bicycle-vehicle collisions (BVCs) reached 1.5%. At the same
time, there is emerging research on improving cycling safety, mostly focused on helmet use [
2
] and
operational cycling speeds [
3
]. Compared with private bikes, shared bike users have lower operational
speeds and are more reluctant to wear helmets [
4
]. While the former is likely to improve cycling safety,
the latter reduces cycling safety. The safety influence of using shared bikes needs further research.
One of the explanations provided for vulnerable road user accidents is their poor visibility to
other drivers [
5
–
7
]. Shared bike features show a possible difference in night visibility. Shared bikes
commonly use a uniform and bright surface, so that the public can find them easily [
8
,
9
]. In China,
the most popular shared bikes are Mobike and Hellobike. The former uses bright orange and the latter
is blue and white. In Canada, Bike Share Toronto is green and black. Further, Bixi in Britain is green
and gray. However, studies on the difference in visibility between shared bikes and private bikes
are scarce.
On the other hand, using visibility aids to increase visibility is equally important, especially
when cycling in low-light conditions [
10
,
11
]. Visibility aids can increase the distance at which car
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035; doi:10.3390/su11247035 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 2 of 11
drivers detect cyclists at night [
12
,
13
]. Currently, front reflectors, static lights, and flashing lights are
widely used to improve cyclist visibility at night [
14
–
16
]. Further, some countries and regions have
started placing legal requirements on shared bikes to improve cycling visibility at night. For example,
in Mainland China, night-time reflectors need to be added but there is no requirement for helmets
and headlights. In the United States, Singapore, Australia [
17
], and some other locations, headlights
are provided with shared bikes as mandatory requirement. Other promising visibility aids include
retroreflective markers. Due to drivers’ visual sensitivity to human motion patterns, when placing
retroreflective markers on users’ major moving joints (such as ankles, knees, wrists, etc.), drivers can
recognize the presence of users more frequently and at much longer distances [
18
,
19
]. Much research
has evaluated visibility during night cycling using different visibility aids [
13
,
20
], but there is little
research on the difference between shared bikes and private bikes when using different visibility aids.
Therefore, the main objective of this study was to evaluate the difference between shared bikes
and private bikes when using visibility aids under low light conditions. Specifically, the aim of this
paper was to:
1.
Evaluate the difference in visibility between shared bikes and private bikes with five types of
visibility aids.
2.
Explore the difference in behavior when using visibility aids. Cyclists’ estimation of their own
visibility is among the key influencing variables.
This study can contribute to achieving a better understanding of the visibility of shared bikes.
Our results could help policy makers and cyclists to equip shared bikes with suitable visibility aids.
Further, we can provide more reasonable advice on night cycling for cyclists.
2. Methodology
The experimental methods employed in this research are introduced in this section, including
each step of this experiment and its related information.
2.1. Participants
In total, 50 participants completed the experiment, with a gender ratio of 1.27:1.00 (male: female).
Two subjects aged 25 and 40, respectively, with motor vehicle driving licenses issued by China’s
public security authority, were selected as the drivers of our test vehicle. Both of the subjects drive
regularly—every week in the past two years—and have had no accidents in the last three years.
Recruitment
Offline leaflets and online advertising were both used to recruit participants (as bike riders) for
our experiment. A total of 81 persons responded. However, due to logistics and test requirements,
53 persons initially participated, with 50 successfully completing the test.
Demographics
1.
Data on gender, age, bike accidents, etc., for each participant were collected using a questionnaire
before the test, and the statistical results are shown in Table 1. All participants came from Nanjing,
China. Accidents were defined as incidents in which the participants were injured or caused an
injury to anyone else while riding a bike during the past year.
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 3 of 11
Table 1. Sociological statistical information on participants.
Male 28
Female 22
Age
Max. 48
Mean 33.4
Min. 24
Number of accidents involved
Max. 2
Mean 0.4
Min 0
Bike preference (for typical use) Private bike 34%
Shared bike 66%
2.2. Driving Scenario
The layout of the test driving scenario is shown in Figure 1, where the driving course was a
400 m-long (1312 ft) section of straight road. The starting point was the departure point of bike
riders and the terminal was the departure point of the test vehicle. The starting distance of these
points between bike riders and the test vehicle was 400 m (1312 ft). The road width is 8 m, which is
divided into two 4 m-wide (13.12 ft) mixed lanes for both motor vehicles and non-motorized vehicles.
The driving road section was closed during the driving tests, in order to avoid any interference caused
by other pedestrians or other motor vehicles.
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12
Mean
0.4
Min
0
Bike preference
(for typical use)
Private bike
34%
Shared bike
66%
2.2. Driving Scenario
The layout of the test driving scenario is shown in Figure 1, where the driving course was a 400
m-long (1312 ft) section of straight road. The starting point was the departure point of bike riders and
the terminal was the departure point of the test vehicle. The starting distance of these points between
bike riders and the test vehicle was 400 m (1312 ft). The road width is 8 m, which is divided into two
4 m-wide (13.12 ft) mixed lanes for both motor vehicles and non-motorized vehicles. The driving road
section was closed during the driving tests, in order to avoid any interference caused by other
pedestrians or other motor vehicles.
Figure 1. Test driving scenario.
Illumination of the Experimental Scene
All experiments were conducted at least one hour after sunset. A handheld light-measuring
device was used to test the illumination conditions of the road section. We ensured that the
illumination parameter for each test was not greater than 20 Lux at a height of 1.5 meters.
Weather in the Experimental Scene
All experiments were conducted in dry weather.
2.3. Test Vehicles and Bikes
A 20-inch HITO brand black bike was used as the private bike, with a net weight of 11 kg. This
bike was suitable for riders with a height of between 140 cm and 180 cm.
Sharing-bikes from OFO company were chosen as our test shared bikes. The classical OFO 2.0
bike type was used, with the most commonly used type being a 26-inch family bike size. The color
was golden yellow (CMYK color value C3, M26, Y96, K0).
The vehicle used in our experiment was a Volkswagen (POLO 1.4 L, 2007 version), with height
of 1,465 mm, width of 1,650 mm, length of 3,916 mm, and wheelbase of 2,460 mm. It was a five-door,
five-seat car, and the color was sky blue (CMYK color value C40, M0, Y0, K0).
2.4. Experiment Design
Figure 1. Test driving scenario.
Illumination of the Experimental Scene
All experiments were conducted at least one hour after sunset. A handheld light-measuring device
was used to test the illumination conditions of the road section. We ensured that the illumination
parameter for each test was not greater than 20 Lux at a height of 1.5 meters.
Weather in the Experimental Scene
All experiments were conducted in dry weather.
2.3. Test Vehicles and Bikes
A 20-inch HITO brand black bike was used as the private bike, with a net weight of 11 kg. This bike
was suitable for riders with a height of between 140 cm and 180 cm.
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 4 of 11
Sharing-bikes from OFO company were chosen as our test shared bikes. The classical OFO 2.0
bike type was used, with the most commonly used type being a 26-inch family bike size. The color was
golden yellow (CMYK color value C3, M26, Y96, K0).
The vehicle used in our experiment was a Volkswagen (POLO 1.4 L, 2007 version), with height of
1,465 mm, width of 1,650 mm, length of 3,916 mm, and wheelbase of 2,460 mm. It was a five-door,
five-seat car, and the color was sky blue (CMYK color value C40, M0, Y0, K0).
2.4. Experiment Design
The experiments were designed to test the influence of visibility under low-light conditions using
different visibility aids. At the same time, the difference between private bikes and shared bikes was
analyzed to determine effects on night visibility.
Types of Visibility aids
The influence of the following five types of visibility aids was tested:
•
Static light: an LED bike light was used with a maximum brightness of 250 LM and a direct
radiation distance at night of 80 m.
•
Flashing light: The flashing light used in this study has the same lighting capability as the static
light and a flashing frequency of 0.5 times a second.
•
Front reflectors: Yellow hard reflectors were mounted at the front of bikes and the front of
the pedals.
•
Retro-reflective strips on the major moveable joints: Red retro-reflective strips produced by China
ONLINELOVE Company were used. The strip width was 1 cm (0.394 inches). Prism reflective
films were attached to the strips. According to the test data provided by the manufacturer,
the maximum visible reflection distance was 300 m (984.25 inch).
•No visibility factors.
Experiment Steps
The participants were asked to perform independent trials on the two kinds of bikes, which were
equipped with one of five types of visibility aids. Each participant was required to complete 10 trials
(five on shared bikes and five on private bikes), as listed in Table 2. For each participant, the order of
these ten trials was random.
Table 2. Trials and independent variables.
No. The Types of Bikes Visibility Aids
1
Shared bike
Static light
2 Flashing light
3 Front reflectors
4 Retroreflective strips
5 No aids
6
Private bike
Static light
7 Flashing light
8 Front reflectors
9 Retroreflective strips
10 No aids
The participants were asked to ride to the end of the road section at a normal speed (around
15 km/h) in each trial. One experimenter assisted the participants to select and change different bikes
and visibility aids and followed the participants to record two position coordinates of the participants:
1.
The position coordinate of the bike rider at which the bike rider thought that the motor vehicle
driver could see them was recorded as bike position 1 (BP1).
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 5 of 11
2.
The position coordinate of the bike rider (participant) at which the motor vehicle driver said that
he/she could see the bike rider was recorded as bike position 2 (BP2).
The other experimenter recorded two position coordinates of the test vehicle:
1.
The position coordinate of the motor vehicle at which the bike rider thought that the motor
vehicle driver could see them was recorded as vehicle position 1 (VP1).
2.
The position coordinate of the motor vehicle at which the motor vehicle driver said that he/she
could see the bike rider was recorded as vehicle position 2 (VP2).
Speed measuring devices and cameras (used to record the speed and position of bikes) were
equipped on both the test vehicle and bikes for the test trials. The data recording process is shown in
Figure 2.
Sustainability 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12
2. The position coordinate of the motor vehicle at which the motor vehicle driver said that he/she
could see the bike rider was recorded as vehicle position 2 (VP2).
Speed measuring devices and cameras (used to record the speed and position of bikes) were
equipped on both the test vehicle and bikes for the test trials. The data recording process is shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Data recording process.
Test Trial
One staff member introduced the test procedures without describing the test purpose to reduce
potential interference caused by participants. The participants were asked to repeat the instructions
to sure that they fully understand the experiment. A written description of the detailed procedures
was provided to every participant before the test. We also required each participant to complete a
random training trial to become familiar with the test procedure.
In addition, the following two criteria were used to evaluate the validity of a recorded result:
1. Speed requirement: with an average speed of 15 km/h, the speed variation of a bike rider
should not be greater than 5 km/h. The speed variation of the motor vehicle should not be greater
than 10 km/h, given the required driving speed of 40 km/h.
2. Track requirement: the cyclist is required to ride the bike in the right lane and the distance to
the central line of the road should not be less than 2 m (6.56 feet). The driver should also drive the
motor vehicle in the appropriate lane and not cross the central line.
If tests failed to meet one or all criteria, the tests were required to be performed again. If four
consecutive tests completed by a participant did not qualify, this participant was removed from the
study.
3. Results
Data analysis was performed using three dependent variables:
The estimated recognition distance (Der), or the distance between cyclists and drivers when
the cyclists reported that they thought they were visible to drivers.
The actual recognition distance (Dar), or the distance between cyclists and drivers when the
drivers reported that they could see the cyclists.
The distance difference (DD), which means the difference between Der and Dar. A value of
α = 0.05 was used in all analyses to determine the significance of main effects.
The multiple-factor repetitive measurement and the analysis of variance were conducted on the
estimated recognition distances, actual recognition distances, and distance differences as functions of
the kind of bikes (2 levels: level 0 = private bikes and level 1 = shared bikes), visibility aids (5 levels:
level 1 = static light; level 2 = flashing light; level 3 = reflector; level 4 = retro-reflective strips on the
major moveable joints; level 5 = no visibility aids). Table 3 shows the least squares means of Der, Dar,
and DD for private bikes and shared bikes across all visibility aids.
Figure 2. Data recording process.
Test Trial
One staffmember introduced the test procedures without describing the test purpose to reduce
potential interference caused by participants. The participants were asked to repeat the instructions to
sure that they fully understand the experiment. A written description of the detailed procedures was
provided to every participant before the test. We also required each participant to complete a random
training trial to become familiar with the test procedure.
In addition, the following two criteria were used to evaluate the validity of a recorded result:
1.
Speed requirement: with an average speed of 15 km/h, the speed variation of a bike rider should
not be greater than 5 km/h. The speed variation of the motor vehicle should not be greater than
10 km/h, given the required driving speed of 40 km/h.
2.
Track requirement: the cyclist is required to ride the bike in the right lane and the distance to the
central line of the road should not be less than 2 m (6.56 feet). The driver should also drive the
motor vehicle in the appropriate lane and not cross the central line.
If tests failed to meet one or all criteria, the tests were required to be performed again. If four
consecutive tests completed by a participant did not qualify, this participant was removed from
the study.
3. Results
Data analysis was performed using three dependent variables:
•
The estimated recognition distance (D
er
), or the distance between cyclists and drivers when the
cyclists reported that they thought they were visible to drivers.
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 6 of 11
•
The actual recognition distance (D
ar
), or the distance between cyclists and drivers when the drivers
reported that they could see the cyclists.
•
The distance difference (DD), which means the difference between D
er
and D
ar
. A value of
α
=0.05
was used in all analyses to determine the significance of main effects.
The multiple-factor repetitive measurement and the analysis of variance were conducted on the
estimated recognition distances, actual recognition distances, and distance differences as functions of
the kind of bikes (2 levels: level 0 =private bikes and level 1 =shared bikes), visibility aids (5 levels:
level 1 =static light; level 2 =flashing light; level 3 =reflector; level 4 =retro-reflective strips on the
major moveable joints; level 5 =no visibility aids). Table 3shows the least squares means of D
er
,D
ar
,
and DD for private bikes and shared bikes across all visibility aids.
Table 3.
Least squares means of estimated recognition distance, actual recognition distance, and distance
difference in private bikes and shared bikes.
Types of Bikes Der Dar DD
Shared bikes 78.9722(±3.0916) a28.3100(±0.8167) 50.6622(±2.7873)
Private bikes 74.5960(±3.0916) 26.8667(±0.8167) 47.7293(±2.7873)
aLeast squares means (standard error).
3.1. Estimated Recognition Distance (Der)
It can be seen from Table 4that, across all kinds of visibility aids, the estimated recognition distance
of shared bikes was significantly higher than that of private bikes, with p=0.0071 and F(1,49) =8.39.
Table 4.
Differences of Least Squares Means in Pairwise Comparison of estimated recognition distance
(shared bikes versus private bikes).
Group 1 Group 2 Estimate Differences Standard Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
shared bikes private bikes 4.3762 1.5104 49 2.9 0.0071
For comparison of private bikes and shared bikes, as shown in Table 5, both static and flashing
lights provide significantly higher D
er
values than the use of reflectors, retro-reflective strips, and no
aids. No aids were the least visible scenario based on the shortest distance of detection for all tested
visibility aids. There was no significant difference in D
er
between static light and flashing light, or
between reflector and retro-reflective strips. Table 5shows the differences of Least Squares Means in
pairwise comparison.
Table 5.
The Differences of Least Squares Means in Pairwise Comparison of estimated recognition
distance (visibility aids).
Visibility Aids 1 Visibility Aids 2 Estimate
Differences
Standard
Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
static light reflector 14.6 2.3882 196 6.11 <0.001
static light retroreflective strips 15.2658 2.3882 196 6.39 <0.001
static light flashing light 3.6942 2.3882 196 1.55 0.1246
static light no aids 24.5612 2.3882 196 10.28 <0.001
reflector retroreflective strips 0.6658 2.3882 196 0.28 0.7809
reflector flashing light −10.9058 2.3882 196 −4.57 <0.001
reflector no aids 9.9612 2.3882 196 4.17 <0.001
retroreflective strips flashing light −11.5717 2.3882 196 −4.85 <0.001
retroreflective strips no aids 9.2954 2.3882 196 3.89 <0.001
flashing light no aids 20.8671 2.3882 196 8.74 <0.001
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 7 of 11
The D
er
of shared bikes with a static light was also significantly higher than that of private
bikes, with p=0.0111. Differently, there was no statistical difference between flashing light, reflector
retro-reflective strips, or no aids (Table 6).
Table 6.
Differences of Least Squares Means in Pairwise Comparison of estimated recognition distance
(shared bikes with visibility aids versus personal bikes with visibility aids).
Shared Bikes’
Visibility Aids
Personal Bikes’
Visibility Aids
Estimate
Differences
Standard
Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
Light lamp light lamp 8.7167 3.3774 196 2.58 0.0111
reflector reflector 0.4833 3.3774 196 0.14 0.8865
retroreflective strips retroreflective strips 3.0883 3.3774 196 0.91 0.3624
flashing light flashing light 4.165 3.3774 196 1.23 0.22
no aids no aids 5.4275 3.3774 196 1.61 0.1108
3.2. Actual Recognition Distance (Dar)
In the tests of fixed effects, as indicated in Table 7, there was no statistical difference between
private bikes and shared bikes for actual recognition distance, with F(1,49) =3.18 and p=0.0849 >0.05.
Table 7.
Differences of Least Squares Means in Pairwise Comparison of actual recognition distance
(shared bikes versus private bikes).
Group 1 Group 2 Estimate Differences Standard Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
Shared bikes Private bikes 1.4433 0.809 49 1.78 0.0849
As shown in Table 8, use of a bike with a reflector resulted in a higher actual distance than use
of a bike with a flashing light, retro-reflective strips, or no aids, with positive estimate differences
(6.1708 for retro-reflective strips, 7.6375 for flashing light, and 7.35 for no aids) and values of p<0.0001.
Interestingly, use of both a static light and a reflector had a larger positive estimate difference compared
to use of a flashing light (6.0292 for static light with p=0.005; 7.6375 for reflector with p<0.0001),
indicating that use of a flashing light reduced actual recognition distance compared to use of a static
light and reflector.
Table 8.
The Differences of Least Squares Means in Pairwise Comparison of actual recognition distance
(visibility aids).
Visibility Aids 1 Visibility Aids 2 Estimate
Differences
Standard
Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
static light reflector −1.6083 1.2792 196 −1.26 0.2112
static light retroreflective strips 4.5625 1.2792 196 3.57 <0.001
static light flashing light 6.0292 1.2792 196 4.71 <0.001
static light no aids 5.7417 1.2792 196 4.49 <0.001
reflector retroreflective strips 6.1708 1.2792 196 4.82 <0.001
reflector flashing light 7.6375 1.2792 196 5.97 <0.001
reflector no aids 7.35 1.2792 196 5.75 <0.001
retroreflective strips flashing light 1.4667 1.2792 196 1.15 0.2539
retroreflective strips no aids 1.1792 1.2792 196 0.92 0.3585
flashing light no aids −0.2875 1.2792 196 −0.22 0.8226
For use of the same retro-reflective strips, the actual distance was statistically higher with shared
bikes than that for private bikes, with a positive estimate of differences of least squares means of 4.2417
(
±
1.809 standard error), p=0.0207. This difference between shared and private bikes remained when
there was no visibility aid, with a positive estimate of 4.25 (
±
1.809 standard error) and p=0.0205.
When equipped with a flashing light, private bikes were visible at a greater distance than shared bikes,
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 8 of 11
with an estimate of 4.1583 (
±
1.809 standard error) and p=0.233. Table 5shows the differences of Least
Squares Means in pairwise comparison. (Shown in Table 9)
Table 9.
The Differences of Least Squares Means in Pairwise Comparison of actual recognition distance
(Shared bikes’ visibility aids versus Personal bikes’ visibility aids).
Shared Bikes’
Visibility Aids
Personal Bikes’
Visibility Aids
Estimate
Differences
Standard
Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
static light static light −0.2667 1.809 196 −0.15 0.8831
Reflector reflector 3.15 1.809 196 1.74 0.0843
retroreflective strips retroreflective strips 4.2417 1.809 196 2.34 0.0207
flashing light flashing light −4.1583 1.809 196 −2.3 0.0233
no aids no aids 4.25 1.809 196 2.35 0.0205
3.3. The Distance Difference (DD) between Estimated Recognition Distance and Actual Recognition Distance
In the tests of fixed effects of DD, as shown in Table 10, there was no significant difference for
different types of bikes (F(1,49) =3.31 and p=0.0793 >0.05). Given those results, we only compared
the DD under different visibility aids, as shown in Table 11.
Table 10.
The Differences of Least Squares Means in Pairwise Comparison of distance differences
(Shared bikes versus Private bikes).
Group 1 Group 2 Estimate Differences Standard Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
Shared bikes Private bikes 2.9328 1.6125 29 1.82 0.0793
Table 11.
The Differences of Least Squares Means in Pairwise Comparison of distance differences
(visibility aids).
Visibility Aids 1 Visibility Aids 2 Estimate
Differences
Standard
Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
static light reflector 16.2083 2.5496 116 6.36 <0.001
static light retroreflective strips 10.7033 2.5496 116 4.2 <0.001
static light flashing light −2.335 2.5496 116 −0.92 0.3617
static light no aids 18.8196 2.5496 116 7.38 <0.001
reflector retroreflective strips −5.505 2.5496 116 −2.16 0.0329
reflector flashing light −18.5433 2.5496 116 −7.27 <0.001
reflector no aids 2.6112 2.5496 116 1.02 0.3079
retroreflective strips flashing light −13.0383 2.5496 116 −5.11 <0.001
retroreflective strips no aids 8.1162 2.5496 116 3.18 0.0019
flashing light no aids 21.1546 2.5496 116 8.3 <0.001
As shown in Table 11, the use of static light gave a positive estimate of distance differences
compared to the use of a reflector, retro-reflective strips, or no aids (16.2083 compared to a reflector,
with p<0.001; 10.7033 compared to retro-reflective strips, with p<0.001; and 18.8196 compared to no
aids, with p<0.001). These results indicated that cyclists overestimate their visibility to a greater degree
when using a static light than when using a reflector, retro-reflective strips, or no aids. At the same
time, the results for night cycling without any visibility aids indicated less overestimation of cyclist
visibility, with a lower DD value using no aid compared to that using a flashing light, retro-reflective
strips, or static light.
Additionally, for both types of bikes and all kinds of visibility aids, the results showed a positive
estimate value for DD (49.1958, with a standard error of 2.6682, p<0.001) in the solution for fixed effects,
which indicated a statistically higher estimated recognition distance relative to the actual recognition
distance. In other words, night-cyclists might overestimate their visibility in low light conditions, as
reported by Wood [
18
,
19
]. We also did a one-sample T-test for the hypothesis H0 that the ensemble
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 9 of 11
average of DD is zero, and the result showed that t (49) =39.8296 and p<0.001, which allowed the
rejection of H0.
3.4. A Post-Experiment Survey
Analysis of the experiment data in Section 3.3 revealed that although night-cyclists have greater
confidence when using a bike with a flashing light, our experiment indicated that static light and
retro-reflective strips have better night visibility. Because few bikes in China are equipped with lights,
especially flashing lights, it is necessary to assess the familiarity of drivers with flashing-light bikes.
We next did a survey to probe cyclists’ views about private bikes and shared bikes in a night-cycling
scene with different visibility aids. We then used a thirty-second video to assess drivers’ familiarity
with flashing-light bikes. The survey was completed by 187 respondents who ranged in age from 20 to
59. Of the respondents, 123 people were invited to answer questions as cyclists, and 65 people were
invited to complete this survey as drivers.
In the survey of cyclists, 27.6% interviewees said that they felt a perceptible difference between
using a shared bike or a personal bike. The rest (72.4%) reported no or only a slight difference between
using a shared bike or a personal bike. Almost all interviewees considered shared bikes to be more
visible for night cycling (93.5%). In response to a question on which type of visibility aid is the most
visible for night cycling, 91.9% interviewees selected a flashing light, and the remaining respondents
chose a static light.
The survey of drivers did not include written questions. Drivers watched a thirty-second video
that was recorded from the driver’s perspective about a bicyclist cycling at night from the opposite
direction (nearly 200 meters away) on a bike with a flashing light. As they watched this video, we
asked what they thought the flashing light was. No drivers thought it was a bike during the first 10 s
of the video and 41.5% drivers reported that it might be a bike in the middle 10 s. After watching the
whole video, 81.5% of viewers thought it was a bike, but only 61.5% were sure. This result indicated
a low ability of drivers to recognize a bike with a flashing light, which may explain the difference
between our result and that of Wood [18].
4. Discussion
We have evaluated the visibility difference between private bikes and shared bikes with five
types of visibility aids. The results showed cyclists overestimate shared bikes’ visibility in lowlight
conditions. As a visibility aid, a flashing light does not provide as much visibility to others as cyclists
expect it to. The difficulty of quick recognition one of the main the possible causes of this, as seen in
the post-experiment survey.
Firstly, one result in this research is consistent with Wood [
18
,
19
], which indicated that cyclists
overestimate their own night-time visibility. One possible explanation for this is that cyclists tend to stand
on their own shoes to estimate recognition distance. A previous study showed that cyclist-motorists
had fewer collisions with cyclists and detected them at a greater distance [
5
]. According to bike crashes
research in New Zealand conducted by Tin et al. [
21
], cyclists’ visibility may be improved if more
people cycle and fewer people drive cars. In other words, cyclists or cyclist-motorists may have a
longer recognition distance for other cyclists than motorists. So in our research, if our cyclist tends to
estimate their recognition distance as a cyclist observing another cyclist, it would be a shorter estimate
than a motorist would actually take to spot a cyclist.
One interesting result is that cyclists think shared bikes are more visible than private bikes while
there is actually no significant difference. Different proportions of sensory visibility and cognitive
visibility between cyclists and motorists are one possible reason for this. Sensory visibility shows the
extent to which an object can be distinguished from its environment, due to its physical characteristics
such as its shape, brightness, color, and angular size [
22
,
23
]. Obviously, shared bikes have a higher
sensory visibility than private visibility due to its bright and uniform appearance. Cognitive visibility
refers to the extent to which an object be noticed due to an observer’s experience, expectations,
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 10 of 11
and objectives [
24
–
27
]. In lowlight conditions, it can assume that shared bikes and private bikes may
not have a significant cognitive difference. This means motorists may obtain the same observation
times, no matter whether they encounter a sharing bike or private bike moving in the opposite
direction. And they will extract similar information from traffic scenes based on their own expectations.
Cyclists may estimate their own bikes’ visibility mostly based on sensory visibility, while drivers
mostly use cognitive visibility. However, for now this remains a hypothesis, which targeted research
should explore further in the future.
Another cognitive difference is that flashing lights do not provide as good a visibility as cyclists
estimate. A static light and flashing light showed a higher estimated recognition distance than reflector
and retroreflective strips. But a static light and reflector had a significantly higher actual distance
than flashing light, retroreflective strips, and no aids. A flashing light still provides higher sensory
visibility, due to our visual sensitivity towards patterns of human motion [
28
,
29
]. However, it may
be hard for drivers to recognize, which means it provides bad cognitive visibility, according to the
post-experiment survey.
However, there is still a gender gap in using shared bikes. This could be a constraint for the
validity of similar experiments if these gaps are not previously addressed. The gender distribution of
cyclists and the gender distribution of drivers were not representative of the gender distribution of
these two groups in the surveyed area. The experimental sample in our research included more males
than females. It would be interesting to carry out the same experiment with a different sex ratio to
study the effect of gender on cyclists’ and drivers’ estimation differences between shared bikes and
private bikes.
We evaluated the visibility difference in shared bikes and private bikes using five types of visibility
aids. The current study can advise policy makers in providing proper visibility aids and improving the
safety of share bike programs. In addition, it suggested that there is a difference in sensory visibility and
cognitive visibility between cyclists and motorists. Further research on cyclists and drivers’ sensory
visibility and cognitive visibility is necessary for improving cyclists’ visibility in lowlight conditions.
Author Contributions:
C.W. and D.C. conceived and designed this research. C.W. and other five graduate
students completed these experiments and collected the data. C.W. wrote the paper. D.C. reviewed and edited the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have declared that no competing interest exist.
References
1.
Frade, I.; Ribeiro, A. Bike-sharing stations: A maximal covering location approach. Transp. Res. Part A
2015
,
82, 216–227. [CrossRef]
2.
Ethan, D.; Basch, C.; Johnson, G.; Hammond, R.; Chow, C.; Varsos, V. An analysis of technology-related
distracted biking behaviors and helmet use among cyclists in New York City. J. Community Health
2016
,41,
138–145. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Schleinitz, K.; Petzoldt, T.; Gehlert, T. Risk compensation? —The relationship between helmet use and
cycling speed under naturalistic conditions. J. Saf. Res. 2018,67, 165–171. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Fishman, E.; Schepers, P. Global bike share: What the data tells us about road safety. J. Saf. Res.
2016
,56,
41–45. [CrossRef]
5.
Rog
é
, J.; Ndiaye, D.; Vienne, F. Useful visual field training: A way to improve elderly car drivers’ ability to
detect vulnerable road users. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014,26, 246–257. [CrossRef]
6.
Twisk, D.A.; Reurings, M. An epidemiological study of the risk of cycling in the dark: the role of visual
perception, conspicuity and alcohol use. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013,60, 134–140. [CrossRef]
7.
Noordzij, P.C. Cycling in the dark: An analysis of fatal bicycle accidents in The Netherlands. J. Saf. Res.
1976
,
8, 73–76.
8.
Demaio, P. Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. J. Public Transp.
2014
,12, 3.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019,11, 7035 11 of 11
9.
Midgley, P. Bicycle-Sharing Schemes: Enhancing Sustainable Mobility in Urban Areas. Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff.
2011,8, 1–12.
10.
Thornley, S.J.; Woodward, A.; Langley, J.D.; Ameratunga, S.N.; Rodgers, A. Conspicuity and bicycle crashes:
Preliminary findings of the taupo bicycle study. Inj. Prev. J. Int. Soc. Child Adolesc. Inj. Prev.
2008
,14, 11.
[CrossRef]
11.
Kwan, I.; Mapstone, J. Visibility aids for pedestrians and cyclists: A systematic review of randomised
controlled trials. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2004,36, 305–312. [CrossRef]
12.
Madsen, J.C.O.; Andersen, T.; Lahrmann, H.S. Safety effects of permanent running lights for bicycles:
A controlled experiment. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013,50, 820–829. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Wood, J.M.; Tyrrell, R.A.; Marszalek, R.; Lacherez, P.; Carberry, T.; Chu, B.S. Using reflective clothing to
enhance the conspicuity of bicyclists at night. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012,45, 726–730. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Prati, G. The effect of an italian nationwide mandatory visibility aids law for cyclists. J. Transp. Health
2018
,
9, 212–216. [CrossRef]
15.
Lahrmann, H.; Madsen, T.K.O.; Olesen, A.V.; Madsen, J.C.O.; Hels, T. The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on
cyclist accidents. Saf. Sci. 2017,108, 209–217. [CrossRef]
16.
Carol, C.; Denise, K.; Miller, P.D.; Frank, C. The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and risk of crashes
involving other road users: A protocol for a population based case-control study. BMC Public Health
2010
,10,
1–6.
17.
National Transport Commission. National Transport Commission Australian Road Rules, Regulation
259. 2009. Available online: http://www.ntc.gov.au/ViewPage.aspx?documentid=00794 (accessed on
20 May 2010).
18.
Wood, J.M.; Tyrrell, R.A.; Marszalek, R.; Lacherez, P.; Carberry, T. Bicyclists overestimate their own night-time
conspicuity and underestimate the benefits of retroreflective markers on the moveable joints.
Accid. Anal. Prev.
2013,55, 48–53. [CrossRef]
19.
Wood, J.M.; Lacherez, P.F.; Marszalek, R.P.; King, M.J. Drivers’ and cyclists’ experiences of sharing the road:
Incidents, attitudes and perceptions of visibility. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2009,41, 772–776. [CrossRef]
20.
Rog
é
, J.; Ndiaye, D.; Aillerie, I.; Aillerie, S.; Navarro, J.; Vienne, F. Mechanisms underlying cognitive
conspicuity in the detection of cyclists by car drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017,104, 88–95. [CrossRef]
21.
Tin, S.; Woodward, A.; Ameratunga, S. Incidence, risk, and protective factors of bicycle crashes: Findings
from a prospective cohort study in New Zealand. Prev. Med. 2013,57, 152–161. [CrossRef]
22.
Hancock, P.A.; Wulf, G.; Thom, D.; Fassnacht, P. Driver workload during differing driving maneuvers.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 1990,22, 281–290. [CrossRef]
23.
Wulf, G.; Hancock, P.A.; Rahimi, M. Motorcycle conspicuity: An evaluation and synthesis of influential
factors. J. Saf. Res. 1989,20, 153–176. [CrossRef]
24.
Horswill, M.S.; Helman, S.; Ardiles, P.; Wann, J.P. Motorcycle accident risk could be inflated by a time to
arrival illusion. Optom. Vis. Sci. 2005,82, 740–746. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Mitsopoulos-Rubens, E.; Lenn
é
, M.G. Issues in motorcycle sensory and cognitive conspicuity: The impact of
motorcycle low-beam headlights and riding experience on drivers’ decisions to turn across the path of a
motorcycle. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012,49, 86–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26.
Prijs, K. Problems of Sensory-and Cognitive Conspicuity of Motorcyclists at Junctions: A Car to Motorcycle
Comparison of Visual Search and Give-Way Intentions by Car Drivers, from two Angles of Approach.
Master’s Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2015.
27.
Clabaux, N.; Brenac, T.; Perrin, C.; Magnin, J.; Canu, B.; Van Elslande, P. Motorcyclists’ speed and
“looked-but-failed-to-see” accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012,49, 73–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Balk, S.A.; Tyrrell, R.A.; Brooks, J.O.; Carpenter, T.L. Highlighting human form and motion information
enhances the conspicuity of pedestrians at night. Perception 2008,37, 1276–1284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29.
Wood, J.M.; Tyrrell, R.A.; Carberry, T.P. Limitations in drivers’ ability to recognize pedestrians at night.
Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2005,47, 644–653. [CrossRef]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
