Effect of cycling inactivity and cycling speed on hazard mitigation

• Main Author: Tan, Song Keat
• Other Authors: Zhu Feng
• Format: Final Year Project
• Language: English
• Published: 2019
• Subjects: Engineering::Civil engineering::Transportation
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10356/78769
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

In recent years, cycling has become increasingly popular in Singapore, but accident rates involving cyclists have also increased as well. Cyclists’ perception and reaction towards hazards are critical to the avoidance of accidents, and can be affected by cyclists’ demographic factors, cycling speed and the hazard conditions. This study aims to determine the effect of cycling inactivity and cycling speed on hazard mitigation, in terms of cyclists’ response time and response behaviour towards the hazard. A simulated cycling environment was used in this study, focusing on a covert hazard in which a pedestrian walked onto the cyclist’s path from a concealed opening to the side. The proposed independent variable of cycling inactivity was defined based on a threshold inactivity period of 3 months, while cycling speed was considered at the point where the cyclist first fixated his/her eye gaze on the hazard pedestrian. The proposed dependent variable of response time was considered in terms of total response time or Response Latency (RL), as well as sub-components of Lag Time (LT), Time to Fixation (TF), and Perception-Intellection-Emotion-Volition (PIEV) time. Response behaviour was classified into swerving, braking and both swerving and braking. It was found that cycling inactivity did not significantly affect RL or any of its sub-components. The slowest cycling speeds are associated with longer PIEV times, and there is a weak negative linear correlation between speed and PIEV. The proposed independent variables of cycling inactivity and cycling speed were found to have no significant correlation, given the experimental conditions. Faster cycling speeds correlate strongly with a swerving reaction, while slower cycling speeds typically led to braking or both swerving and braking. This may be explained by cyclists’ likelihood of collision and perceived effectiveness of braking or swerving to avoid a collision. Possible research directions in future include developing a rigorous theoretical framework based on collision likelihood to explain different hazard reaction behaviour. Further study of cycling experience and psychological factors in relation to hazard mitigation could also be carried out.