This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:
Wood, Joanne, Lacherez, Philippe, Marszalek, Ralph, & King, Mark(2009)
Drivers’ and cyclists’ experiences of sharing the road: Incidents, attitudes
and perceptions of visibility.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(4), pp. 772-776.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/29579/© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters
This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that
this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Submitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appearance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.014

1

Drivers’ and cyclists’ experiences of sharing the road: incidents,
attitudes and perceptions of visibility

Joanne M. Wood,a, b Philippe F. Lacherez,a, b Ralph P. Marszalek,a, bMark J. Kingb, caSchool of Optometry, Queensland University of Technology
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of TechnologycCentre for Crash Research and Road Safety - Queensland (CARRS-Q), Queensland
University of TechnologybCorresponding author: Prof Joanne M Wood, PhD, School of Optometry and Institute of Healthand Biomedical Innovation, QUT, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane Q 4059, Australia.

Email: j.wood@qut.edu.au

2

Abstract
This study explored the beliefs and attitudes of cyclists and drivers regarding cyclist
visibility, use of visibility aids and crashes involving cyclists and motorists. Data arepresented for 1460 participants (622 drivers and 838 cyclists) and demonstrate that there
are high rates of cyclist-vehicle crashes, many of which were reported to be due to thedriver not seeing the cyclist in time to avoid a collision. A divergence in attitudes was
also apparent in terms of attribution of responsibility in cyclist-vehicle conflicts on theroad. While the use of visibility aids was advocated by cyclists, this was not reflected inself-reported wearing patterns, and cyclists reported that the distance at which theywould be first recognised by a driver was twice that estimated by the drivers.
Collectively, these results suggest that interventions should target cyclists' use ofvisibility aids, which is less than optimal in this population, as well as re-educating bothgroups regarding visibility issues.

Keywords: cyclists, drivers, visibility, perception

3

1. Introduction
Cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users, both in terms of thelikelihood of being involved in a crash, and the consequences that result from evenminor crashes involving a cyclist (as proposed by Rowe, Rowe, & Bota, 1995). The
average probability of a cyclist being seriously injured if involved in a crash was foundto be almost 27% in data collected across four Australian states over a four year period(Watson & Cameron, 2006). Cyclists have among the largest proportion of self-reported
near-miss crashes, significantly higher than that of motorists, and comparable to that ofpedestrians, observed to be as high as one incident every 5.59 miles (Joshi, Senior, &Smith, 2001), which has been cited as a major reason why people choose not to cycle intraffic (Daley, Rissel, & Lloyd, 2007; Joshi et al., 2001).
A consistent finding is that drivers do not detect cyclists until it is too late to
avoid a collision (Kwan & Mapstone, 2004; Räsänen & Summala, 1998). In particular,a proportion of crashes between vehicles and cyclists have been identified as “lookedbut-failed-to-see” crashes (Herslund & Jorgensen, 2003), where the driver of the vehicle
failed to detect the cyclist in time to prevent the crash, even though they reported thatthey correctly looked in the direction of the cyclist. A similar finding was demonstrated
for motorcyclists in an in-depth study of 1000 crashes (Clarke, Ward, Bartle, & Truman,
2004). Late detection of cyclists suggests that their visibility on the road may be an
important contributing factor to their crash involvement. “Looked-but-failed-to-see”
crashes suggest shortcomings in driver attention processes (as proposed by Brown,2005), or an expectancy effect (only scanning for cars, as proposed by Clarke et al.,2004 in relation to motorcyclists).

4

Increased visibility of cyclists may reduce the number of crashes caused bydrivers who exhibit inadequate visual scanning behaviours while at non-traffic lightcontrolled intersections. Cyclists riding against traffic are particularly vulnerable tocollisions at such intersections, especially for vehicles turning from a street
perpendicular to the cyclists’ path (Hunter, Pein, & Stutts, 1995; Summala, Pasanen,
Räsänen, & Sievänen, 1996). Drivers at intersections visually scan to avoid collisions
with vehicles, but this scanning strategy might miss visual cues regarding less frequentand less imminent dangers, such as a cyclist approaching from the side (Summala et al.,1996). Cyclists that are made more visually salient by way of increased conspicuity,
might be more easily recognised, and subsequently avoided, by drivers when scanning
the road scene.
Research has shown that increasing the use of visibility aids may improve theability of drivers to recognise cyclists, as well as pedestrians, and that the ability ofdrivers to respond in time is greater when cyclists or pedestrians make use of visibility
aids (Kwan & Mapstone, 2004). Increased cyclist visibility can have important
implications regarding the severity of injuries suffered in the event of a crash. After
adjusting for potential confounds and level of exposure (ie, kilometres ridden per year),the number of days off work following a bicycle crash injury was found to be
substantially lower among cyclists who reported that they always wore high visibility
clothing (Thornley, Woodward, Langley, Ameratunga, & Rodgers, 2008). Increasing
the visibility of cyclists is especially important when considering low-light conditions.
In his examination of fatal bicycle crashes in Victoria (Australia), Hoque (1990) notedthat although a greater proportion of all fatal bicycle crashes were initiated by thecyclists themselves, in 90% of night-time crashes the cyclist was hit by an overtaking

5

motorist. However, while cyclists are generally well informed regarding the need towear high visibility clothing, and are aware of the benefits of visibility aids such asreflective vests and lights, they do not use such aids on a regular basis (Hagel et al.,2007). It is possible, therefore, that cyclists do overestimate their own visibility, bothwith and without visibility aids, as has been demonstrated for pedestrians (Tyrrell,
Wood and Carberry 2004), which would form a potential barrier to the encouragementof the use of visibility aids. Gathering data on attitudes and awareness of visibility istherefore an important first step in addressing these barriers.
The present research aimed to identify, among a sample of regular cyclists anddrivers, the rate of self-reported incidents involving drivers and cyclists (in terms ofcrashes or near-miss crashes) attributable to poor visibility, as well as the attitudes ofboth groups toward one another. We specifically examined the cyclists’ and drivers’
beliefs about the importance of visibility aids for cyclists on the road, and the cyclists’self-reported behaviour in terms of the frequency of use of visibility aids. In addition,
we asked both cyclists and drivers to make estimates of the distance at which a cyclist
would be visible to an oncoming driver.

2. Method
2.1. Participants
Drivers and cyclists were recruited to participate in a survey via various
Australia-based cycling and driving websites and forums dedicated to road safety. The
survey was available on-line and also distributed in hard copy format around university
campuses (driver survey), and to bicycle shops and cycling clubs in the greater Brisbanearea, Queensland, Australia (cycling survey). The survey was also publicised in6statewide, regional and university newspapers as well as in an issue of the magazine
produced by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ). The surveys werecompleted by 622 drivers (584 online responses, 38 responses to hard copies of thesurvey) and 838 cyclists (766 online responses, 72 responses to hard copies of thesurvey). Those who answered the hard copy version of the survey did not differ fromthose who completed the online survey in terms of age or gender or in terms of the
proportion of cyclists and non-cyclists.
The Queensland University of Technology human research ethics committee
approved the study. All participants were provided with a full explanation of theprocedures, and informed consent was obtained, with the option to withdraw from thestudy at any time. All responses were anonymous.

2.2. Items
The driver and cyclist surveys were presented in slightly differing formats toreflect the differing nature of the participant groups, however, there was a core group of
items that were common to both groups which were primarily concerned with both theattitudes and behaviours of the road users. A range of demographic questions wereasked regarding age, gender, frequency of road use and experience of either driving or
cycling. Drivers and cyclists were asked about any crashes or near misses they may
have had with the other group while on the road under low-light conditions. They werealso asked to provide a brief description of the incident and estimate how likely it wasthat visibility contributed to the incident. Where possible, the description was used todetermine whether the incident constituted a crash (driver making contact with thebicycle or cyclist) or a near miss. A near miss was coded as such if either a driver or7cyclist used the term themselves, or if it could be reasonably determined that it wasnecessary for either a driver or cyclist to take action to avoid a crash occurring. Acrossall of the reports, 81% of responses to this item provided sufficient information to allow
coding into a crash or near miss. Responses were also coded into whether or not thedriver indicated that they did not perceive the cyclist in time to prevent the crash. For 91
of the 99 crashes reported, it was also possible to categorise the crash into discrete crash
configurations, based on the participant responses. Key crash characteristics identified
by cyclists were: car turned-across-path-same direction, car turned-across-path-different
direction, side-swiped, door opened into cyclist, “T-boned” (hit from the side by thefront of a car), hit while on a roundabout, or hit from behind.
A series of items probed the respondent’s attitudes and behaviours in the form ofstatements that the respondents rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1- "disagreestrongly" to 5- "agree strongly". Four of the items had specific relevance to both drivers
and cyclists, and were concerned with cyclist visibility issues. For all of these
agreement items, results were analysed in terms of the proportion of respondents inagreement (i.e., those who nominated either “agree” or “strongly agree”), as well as interms of the mean rating of agreement on the 5-point scale.
A series of questions also asked how visible drivers and cyclists judged cyclists
would be if they were to wear or use a particular item of clothing or equipment(fluorescent vest, reflective vest, white clothes, black clothes, flashing lights, reflective
strips and bicycle lights) during the day or at dawn/dusk/night-time. Responses wererecorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1- “not visible” to 5- “very visible”.
Cyclists were also asked what safety equipment and behaviours they actually utilise
while cycling at dawn/dusk/night-time.

8

Both groups were asked at what distance a cyclist would be visible to a driverusing a low beam head lamp. For this item, cyclists were asked to assume that they were
wearing their regular cycling clothing.

3. Results
3.1. Demographics
Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics and experience on the road forthe drivers and cyclists in this study. The age range of drivers and cyclists was similar,
although there was a tendency for more cyclists to be in the 30-50 age group, 2(6) =37.406, p <.001. Cyclists were more likely to be male (76%), 2 (1) = 147.38, p < .001,
and were more likely to have less than ten years experience on the road, andconsiderably less likely to have more than 20 years experience 2 (4) = 637.50, p < .001.
3.2. Crash involvement
Forty eight percent (405/838) of the cyclists reported having been involved in acrash or near miss with a driver (77 crashes, 233 near misses; 95 could not be coded due
to insufficient information). In contrast, only 27% (168/622) of drivers reported having
had a crash or a near miss with a bicycle (22 crashes, 127 near misses; 19 unable to be
coded). Where a crash or near miss was reported, drivers were over four times more
likely than cyclists to report that visibility was a factor in the incident (OR = 4.36, p <.001). Of the 99 total crashes (accidents which resulted in a collision rather than a nearmiss), 63 (nearly two-thirds) were reported as being the result of the driver not seeing
the cyclist in time to avoid the collision. Table 2 presents a summary of the descriptionsof each of the 91 crashes for which the description provided by participants contained

9

sufficient information to be coded (a further 8 crashes did not contain enoughinformation).

3.3. Attitudinal differences between drivers and cyclists
Table 3 shows the overall responses for each group to the four attitude questions
relevant to visibility which were common to the cyclist and driver questionnaires.
Group differences on all questions were significant with Bonferroni correction. Only asmall minority of drivers and cyclists endorsed the statement that bicycle lights are notnecessary in well-lit conditions. Almost all drivers (95%) agreed that cyclists need towear reflective clothing in low lighting environments, whereas less than three-quartersof cyclists (72%) agreed. This pattern of results - where drivers were more concerned
about the low visibility of cyclists than were the cyclists themselves - was repeated in
the response to the item “cyclists are difficult to see in traffic”, with which 77% ofdrivers agreed, while only 57% of cyclists agreed with this statement. In contrast, morecyclists (88%) agreed that “drivers do not look for cyclists” than did drivers, although amajority of drivers (60%) also agreed. The mean ratings of agreement on these items
did not depend on whether the participant had experienced a crash or near miss.

3.4. Perceptions of effectiveness of visibility aids
Cyclists and drivers were then compared on their ratings of visibility of eachclothing configuration both during the day and at night. Table 4 presents the mean
ratings of visibility for each of the clothing types, broken down by group and time ofday. The largest difference relates to the visibility of cyclists using lights on theirbicycles, where cyclists rate themselves as significantly more visible when using

10

bicycle lights than did the drivers. This difference, in turn, is much greater at night thanduring the day. The other differences are of considerably smaller magnitude. Drivers
consider reflective vests to be more visible than do cyclists at night and in the day,while the difference between drivers and cyclists was only significant for fluorescentvests at night-time. Drivers also consider reflective strips to be more visible during the
day than do cyclists, while cyclists rate flashing lights on the wrists and ankles as more
visible than do drivers at night.
Overall, both the drivers and cyclists consider the use of some aid (fluorescentvests, flashing lights on clothing, fluorescent clothes, reflectors or reflective strips) to bebetter than normal clothing, and rate white clothing above black clothing both during
the day and at night. This indicates a general agreement that these visibility aids are
effective.

3.5. Cyclists’ use of visibility aids
Table 5 shows the stated frequency of use of the different visibility aids reportedby the cyclists in our study. The visibility aids used most often were front and rearbicycle lights, with 83% and 90% of respondents indicating that they always use these.
Front lights are required by law in Australia, so it is surprising that not all respondents
report their use. The use of other types of visibility aids was reported by fewer
participants; however, this may be because cyclists will generally use one, but notmultiple aids. For instance cyclists who wear reflective clothing may not use reflective
tape. In aggregate, the total number of participants who always use either (a) reflective
clothing, (b) reflective tape, or (c) lights mounted on the body or clothing in low

11lighting conditions was 46.8%, and a further 18% nominated that they often use one ofthese visibility aids.
3.6. Perceptions of visibility distanceAn analysis was also performed with regard to the average distance at which
drivers and cyclists believed that a cyclist would be visible to a driver using low-beamheadlamps at night. On average, cyclists believed themselves to be visible from 110.3
metres (sd = 157.662), while drivers believed a cyclist would only be visible at 48.3
metres (sd = 58.69) on average (that is, at less than half the distance estimated by thecyclists), t(1424) = -9.247, p < .001.

4. Discussion
Among a general driving and cycling population, largely surveyed over theinternet, we observed some important differences in the perceptions and attitudes ofcyclists and drivers in the community. Cyclists were at significant risk of being
involved in a crash or a near miss. Cyclists also report more crashes and near misses
than do drivers, which may be partly attributed to the differential opportunities affordedby the fact that a cyclist is likely to encounter a large number of motor vehicles, whilst a
motor vehicle is likely to encounter fewer cyclists. It is also notable that drivers are
considerably more likely than cyclists to attribute the crash to the poor visibility of thecyclist. Whether this is also partly a self-justification on the part of drivers – who may
be keen to place blame on an external factor – cannot be established without objective
evidence.
Although both groups agree that cyclists are more visible if they use some typeof visibility aid, such as fluorescent clothing, reflectors or reflective strips, or additional

12

flashing lights on the bicycle or on their person, the groups differ markedly in theirperceptions of the effectiveness of bicycle lights for increasing cyclist visibility.
Cyclists rate their own bicycle lights as more visible to drivers than do drivers
themselves, both at night and during the day. Without objective data on the visibility ofbicycle lights in traffic it is impossible to say which group is more correct, but the lackof agreement on this issue indicates that at least one group is mistaken as to the efficacy
of bicycle lights in increasing visibility. It would be most useful to follow this up withexperimental measures of the distances at which cyclists do in fact become visible todrivers in the sense of capturing their awareness, under different driving conditions.
While both drivers and cyclists rated fluorescent clothing as more visible thanreflective clothing during the day, and the reverse at night, the ratings were still quite
similar. A source of confusion in regard to cyclist visibility arises from the fact thatdifferent visibility aids are useful in the day and at night. In particular, fluorescentclothing is a useful visibility aid in the daytime as it converts the wavelength of light inthe ultra-violet range (which is in high saturation in sunlight) to longer, visible
wavelengths, thus leading to an overall increase in reflected visible light (Joint
Technical Committee SF/4, 1999). Street lighting contains considerably less UV lightthan does sunlight and therefore the advantage of fluorescent clothing is considerably
reduced at night. Cyclists, however, may be unaware of such physical properties, andassume that the visibility advantage of fluorescent materials is equivalent irrespective oflighting. Thus cyclists who habitually wear fluorescent – as opposed to reflective –materials may considerably overestimate their visibility at night.
There was a considerable discrepancy between cyclists’ endorsement of theeffectiveness of visibility aids and their actual use of the aids, which is in accord with

13

previous findings (Hagel et al., 2007). Given this discrepancy between opinions andpractice it is imperative that researchers examine the barriers to the use of visibility aids,
in order to encourage cyclists to make greater use of such aids
In addition to general perceptions of visibility, cyclists and drivers were asked toestimate at what distance cyclists would be visible. Here the difference between drivers
and cyclists was most pronounced, with cyclists believing that they are visible at morethan twice the distance estimated by a driver under the same circumstances. This is inaccord with experimental data obtained from pedestrians (Tyrrell, Wood, & Carberry,2004), who also believe they are visible to drivers at greater distances than they actuallyare.
The sample recruited was aimed to be a general sample of drivers and cyclists
who could be contacted via the internet. It would, however, be instructive to replicate
this research with specific samples recruited from different locations, to establish theextent to which the trends reported here vary across different populations. Given theconfidential nature of the survey, no data was available as to the location of the
respondents, and it was not possible to externally validate any of the responses. The
reporting of crashes and near misses in particular may be biased with an internet sample
as it is possible that those with a history of incidents may have been drawn toparticipate. However, examination of the data did not suggest any suspicious or
malicious reporting, particularly in the participants' descriptions of their incidents, so it
was considered that these data were genuine representations of the respondents’experiences and views. Further research should also aim to compare responses in cyclist"friendly" cities – those with higher volume of cyclists per capita – to those with fewer
cyclists.

14

It is also important to note that as with any questionnaire, these data address thebeliefs of the participants, and not necessarily their behaviours. In particular withregard to the questions of visibility, and of the respondents' use of visibility aids, thefindings presented here also need to be validated in empirical studies.
In sum, these results suggest considerable divergence of opinion between
cyclists and drivers, both with respect to the perception of dangers that affect cyclists on
the road, and with respect to the liabilities and responsibilities of each group inenhancing awareness of one another. Our data suggest that interventions would be best
targeted in the first instance to addressing cyclists' use of visibility aids, which is lessthan optimal in this population, as well as re-educating both groups regarding visibility
issues. Clear experimental data is also urgently needed to establish the constraints ofvisibility that contribute to the crashes reported here, as it is clear that the rate ofcrashes, and in particular crashes relating to visibility, appear to be unacceptably high.

5. Acknowledgements
This research was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant.

15

6. References
Brown, I. D. (2005). Review of the ‘looked but failed to see’ accident causation factor.
London, UK: Department for transport.
Clarke, D. D., Ward, P., Bartle, C., & Truman, W. (2004). In-depth study of motorcycle
accidents. London, UK: Department for Transport.
Daley, M., Rissel, C., & Lloyd, B. (2007). All dressed up and nowhere to go? A
qualitative research study of the barriers and enablers to cycling in inner Sydney.
Road & Transport Research, 16, 42-52.
Hagel, B. E., Lamy, A., Rizkallah, J. W., Belton, K. L., Jhangri, G. S., Cherry, N., et al.
(2007). The prevalence and reliability of visibility aid and other risk factor datafor uninjured cyclists and pedestrians in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 39, 284-289.
Herslund, M. B., & Jorgensen, N. O. (2003). Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic.
Accident Analysis & Prevention 35, 885-891.
Hoque, M. (1990). An analysis of fatal bicycle accidents in Victoria (Australia) with a
special reference to nighttime accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 22(1),1-11.
Hunter, W. W., Pein, W. E., & Stutts, J. C. (1995). Bicycle-motor vehicle crash types:
The early 1990s. Transportation Research Record 1502, 65-74.
Joint Technical Committee SF/4, O. P. C. (1999). Australian/New Zealand Standard:High visibility safety garments. AS/NZS 4602:1999.: Homebush, Australia:
Standards Australia.
Joshi, M. S., Senior, V., & Smith, G. P. (2001). A diary study of the risk perceptions ofroad users. Health, Risk & Society, 3, 261-279.
Kwan, I., & Mapstone, J. (2004). Visibility aids for pedestrians and cyclists: asystematic review of randomised controlled trials. Accident Analysis &Prevention, 36, 305-312.
Räsänen, M., & Summala, H. (1998). Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car
collisions: an in-depth study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 30, 657-666.
Rowe, B. H., Rowe, A. M., & Bota, G. W. (1995). Bicyclist and environmental factors
associated with fatal bicycle-related trauma in Ontario. Canadian Medical
Association Journal, 152, 45-53.
Summala, H., Pasanen, E., Räsänen, M., & Sievänen, J. (1996). Bicycle accidents anddrivers' visual search at left and right turns. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
28(2), 147-153.
Thornley, S. J., Woodward, A., Langley, J. D., Ameratunga, S. N., & Rodgers, A.
(2008). Conspicuity and bicycle crashes: preliminary findings of the Taupo
Bicycle Study. Injury Prevention, 14, 11-14.
Tyrrell, R. A., Wood, J. M., & Carberry, T. P. (2004). On-road measures of pedestrians'
estimates of their own nighttime conspicuity. Journal of Safety Research, 35(5),483-490.
Watson, L., & Cameron, M. (2006). Bicycle and motorvehicle crash characteristics.
Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre.

16

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the participant group

Drivers2
Cyclists 

Sig

Age
<20
21-25
26-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61+

3%
10%
11%
25%
26%
19%
6%

3%
5%
13%
33%
30%
14%
3%

37.406<.001

Male
FemaleExperience< 2 years
2-5 years
5-10 years
10-20 years
20+

45%
55%

76%
24%

147.38

<.001

3%
7%
12%
24%
54%

32%
18%
19%
19%
12%

637.50<.001

Gender17

Table 2Frequency of occurrence of different crash configurations according to the participant
reportCount Percentage
Turn across path - same
direction
Turn across path - different
direction
Side-swipe
Door opened onto cyclist
T-boned*Roundabout
Rear end

35

38%

8

9%

17
4
15
8
4

19%
4%
16%
9%
4%

*Collision of the front of motor vehicle against the side of the bicycle.

18

Table 3Ratings of agreement on attitude items for cyclists and drivers in this sample, controlling for age, gender and driving/cycling experience.

Item
Cyclists should wear reflective clothing in
low lighting environments/conditions so they
are visible
Cyclists don’t need lights if roads are well lit
Cyclists are difficult to see in traffic
Drivers do not look for cyclists% respondents inagreement
Drivers Cyclists

95%
9%
77%
60%

72%
5%
57%
88%

Mean rating ofagreement on
1-5 scale (SD)
Drivers
Cyclists

4.7 (0.62)
1.62 (1.04)
3.96 (1.04)
3.48 (1.19)

3.96 (1.09)
1.42 (0.87)
3.41 (1.19)
4.37 (0.85)* All analyses are conducted controlling for age, gender and driving/cycling experience.

F(1, 1405)*p

partial2118.01
9.79
60.02
152.84

<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001

0.08
0.01
0.04
0.10

19

Table 4
Mean ratings of visibility for a hypothetical cyclist wearing a given clothing configuration, either at daytime or night-time, on a scale of 1
(not visible) to 5 (very visible).

DaytimeNight-timeVisibility aid
Fluorescent vest
Reflective vest
White clothing
Black clothing
Flashing lights onwrists/ankles
Bicycle lights
Reflective strips onarms/legs
Fluorescent vest
Reflective vest
White clothing
Black clothing
Flashing lights onwrists/ankles
Bicycle lights
Reflective strips onarms/legs

Drivers M (sd)4.06 (0.95)
3.54 (1.05)
3.22 (0.97)
2.26 (1.01)

Cyclists M (sd)3.93 (1)3.32 (1.1)
3.35 (0.94)
2.18 (0.98)

F(1, 1311)
3.018
3.985
2.331
3.853

Sig.
.083
.046
.127
.050

partial2
.002
.003
.002
.003

2.92 (1.09)
2.17 (1.1)

2.81 (1.12)
2.77 (1.14)

1.671
49.846

.196
.000

.001
.037

2.87 (1.11)
3.95 (1.06)
4.61 (0.65)
3.15 (1)1.19 (0.59)

2.68 (1.11)
3.68 (1.05)
4.42 (0.75)
3.07 (0.94)
1.21 (0.56)

5.194
11.12310.944
1.496
.385

.023
.001
.001
.221
.535

.004
.008
.008
.001
.000

4.03 (0.96)
3.3 (1.15)

4.23 (0.84)
4.5 (0.67)

9.819
319.263

.002
.000

.007
.196

3.98 (0.91)

4.08 (0.83)

3.260

.071

.002

All analyses are conducted controlling for age, gender and driving/cycling experience.

20

Table 5
Rated frequency of use of visibility aids by the cyclist sample
Frequency of reported use of visibility aid (at dawn, dusk or at night)

Never

RarelySometimes Often

Always

Reflective clothing

38%

10%

17%

15%

20%

Fluorescent clothing

40%

9%

17%

15%

20%

Reflective tape on body or clothing

41%

7%

13%

14%

25%

Lights attached to body or clothing

49%

7%

10%

9%

26%

Bright colours with no reflective or fluorescent properties

15%

9%

32%

22%

23%

Everyday regular clothing

42%

14%

21%

11%

13%

Rear bicycle lights

2%

0%

1%

7%

90%

Front bicycle lights

2%

0%

4%

10%

83%

Additional flashing lights on bicycle

35%

5%

14%

10%

37%