Safety in numbers for walkers and bicyclists: Exploring the mechanisms

Injury Prevention

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 217-220

  Jacobsen, Peter Lyndon ^a   Ragland, David R ^b   Komanoff, Charles ^c  

^a Safe Transportation Research and Education Center Institute of Transportation Studies School of Public Health University of California ^*  (United States)

^b Berkeley   (United States)

^c Komanoff Energy Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLING; HUMAN; INJURIES; PEDESTRIAN; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; WALKING;

ACCIDENTS, TRAFFIC; BICYCLING; HUMANS; PEDESTRIANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; WALKING;

EID: 84937977733     PISSN: 13538047     EISSN: 14755785     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2015-041635     Document Type: Note

References (41)

1. 1 Jacobsen PL. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Inj Prev 2003;9:205–9.
2. 2 Jacobsen PL, Racioppi F, Rutter H. Who owns the roads? How motorised traffic discourages walking and bicycling. Inj Prev 2009;15:369–73.
3. 3 Brüde U, Larsson J. Models for predicting accidents at junctions where pedestrians and cyclists are involved. How well do they fit? Accid Anal Prev 1993;25:499–509.
4. 4 Elvik R. The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport. Accid Anal Prev 2009;41:849–55.
5. 5 Jonsson T. Predictive models for accidents on urban links. A focus on vulnerable road users [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Bulletin 226. Lund: Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Technology and Society, Traffic Engineering, 2005.
6. 6 Komanoff C. Safety in numbers? A new dimension to the bicycle helmet controversy. Inj Prev 2001;7:343.
7. 7 Mueller N, Rojas-Rueda D, Cole-Hunter T, et al. Health impact assessment of active transportation: a systematic review. Prev Med 2015;76:103–14.
8. 8 Woodcock J, Edwards P, Tonne C, et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet 2009;374:1930–43.
9. 9 Norton PD. Fighting traffic: the dawn of the motor age in the American city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
10. 10 Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V, et al. Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review. BMJ 2004;329:763.
11. 11 Bonham J, Cathcart S, Petkov J, et al. Safety in numbers: a strategy for cycling. 29th Australasian Transport Research Forum: Proceedings; Gold Coast, Queensland, 27–29 September 2006, Gold Coast: Queensland Transport, 2006.
12. 12 Fyhri A, Sundfør HB, Bjørnskau T. Safety-in-numbers —combining a panel design and cross cultural survey to examine the suggested mechanisms. International Cycling Safety Conference. Gothenburg, 2014.
13. 13 de Goede M, Fyhri A, Laureshyn A, et al. Exploring the mechanisms behind the safety in numbers effect: a behavioural analysis of interactions between cyclists and car drivers in Norway and Denmark Conference paper. International Cycling Safety Conference; Göteborg, 2014.
14. 14 Thompson J, Savino G, Stevenson M. Reconsidering the safety in numbers effect for vulnerable road users: an application of agent-based modeling. Traffic Inj Prev 2015;16:147–53.
15. 15 Geyer J, Raford N, Pham T, et al. Safety in numbers: data from Oakland, California. Trans Resp Rec 2006;1982:150–4.
16. 16 Johnson M, Oxley J, Newstead S, et al. Safety in numbers? Investigating Australian driver behaviour, knowledge and attitudes towards cyclists. Accid Anal Prev 2014;70:148–54.
17. 17 Magazzù D, Comelli M, Marinoni A. Are car drivers holding a motorcycle licence less responsible for motorcycle—car crash occurrence? A non-parametric approach. Accid Anal Prev 2006;38:365–70.
18. 18 Nevin JA. Signal detection theory and operant behavior. J Exp Anal Behav 1969;12:475–80.
19. 19 Hills BL. Vision, visibility, and perception in driving. Perception 1980;9:183–216.
20. 20 Godwin HJ, Menneer T, Riggs CA, et al. Perceptual failures in the selection and identification of low-prevalence targets in relative prevalence visual search. Atten Percept Psychophys 2014;77:150–9.
21. 21 Moray N. Designing for transportation safety in the light of perception, attention, and mental models. Ergonomics 1990;33:1201–13.
22. 22 Herslund M-B, Jørgensen NO. Looked-but-failed-tosee- errors in traffic. Accid Anal Prev 2003;35:885–91.
23. 23 Summala H, Pasanen E, Räsänen M, et al. Bicycle accidents and drivers’ visual search at left and right turns. Accid Anal Prev 1996;28:147–53.
24. 24 Beanland V, Lenné MG, Underwood G. Safety in numbers: Target prevalence affects the detection of vehicles during simulated driving. Atten Percept Psychophys 2014;76:805–13.
25. 25 Sanocki T, Islam M, Doyon JK, et al. Rapid scene perception with tragic consequences: observers miss perceiving vulnerable road users, especially in crowded traffic scenes. Atten Percept Psychophys 2015;77:1252–62.
26. 26 Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner NM. Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 2005;435:439–40.
27. 27 Mitroff SR, Biggs AT. The ultra-rare-item effect visual search for exceedingly rare items is highly susceptible to error. Psychol Sci 2014;25:284–9.
28. 28 Biggs AT, Adamo SH, Mitroff SR. Rare, but obviously there: Effects of target frequency and salience on visual search accuracy. Acta Psychologica 2014;152:158–65.
29. 29 Bhalla K, Mohan D. Safety of young children on motorized two-wheelers around the world: A review of the global epidemiological evidence. IATSS Res 2015;38:83–91.
30. 30 Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 1999;28:1059–74.
31. 31 Pammer K, Blink C. Attentional differences in driving judgments for country and city scenes: semantic congruency in inattentional blindness. Accid Anal Prev 2013;50:955–63.
32. 32 Vision Zero SF, Engineering Streets for Safety. http://visionzerosf.org/vision-zero-in-action/engineeringstreets- for-safety/ (accessed 25 Feb 2015).
33. 33 Räsänen M, Summala H. Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car collisions: an in-depth study. Accid Anal Prev 1998;30:657–66.
34. 34 Tingvall C, Haworth N. Vision Zero—An ethical approach to safety and mobility—Monash University [Internet] (cited 6 March 2015). http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/papers/visionzero.html
35. 35 Minikel E. Cyclist safety on bicycle boulevards and parallel arterial routes in Berkeley, California. Accid Anal Prev 2012;45:241–7.
36. 36 Todd K. Pedestrian regulations in the United States: a critical review. Transport Q 1992;46:541–59.
37. 37 Pucher J, Dijkstra L. Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from The Netherlands and Germany. Am J Public Health 2003;93:1509–16.
38. 38 Pucher J, Dill J, Handy S. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Prev Med 2010;50(Suppl 1):S106–25.
39. 39 Graves JM, Pless B, Moore L, et al. Public bicycle share programs and head injuries. Am J Public Health 2014;104:e106–11.
40. 40 Goodman A, Green J, Woodcock J. The role of bicycle sharing systems in normalising the image of cycling: an observational study of London cyclists. J Transpt Health 2014;1:5–8.
41. 41 Rutter H, Cavill N, Racioppi F, et al. Economic impact of reduced mortality due to increased cycling. Am J Prev Med 2013;44:89–92.