# Analysis of Driving Behavior of Micromobility Vehicle Users at Mini-Roundabouts
## 3 Results and Discussion
Zone 3, which is used less frequently (32%), is the choice of users who prefer external paths. This option allows them to negotiate the exit curve with a larger radius, requiring fewer sharp turns or steep steering angles that could affect the stability of the vehicle. The absence of Zone 1 at this stage suggests that e-scooter users find very tight trajectories unsuitable for a smooth transition from the exit to the destination leg, especially at a stage where users tend to accelerate to exit the roundabout. These findings are consistent with studies examining trajectory choice and speed in complex urban contexts, with particular attention to exits from roundabouts with unstable vehicles [10,43]. Figure 7: Radar chart of e-scooter (a) and bike (b) distributions by zone and crossing phase. As for the positions taken by the bicycles when crossing the mini-roundabout, the analysis of the radar chart in Figure 7b shows the following:  
* Entry phase: Cyclists show a strong preference for Zone 2 (78%), which offers an optimal balance between stability and speed. This behavior suggests that most cyclists feel sufficiently safe to follow trajectories requiring fewer adjustments to manage the subsequent turning phase around the central island. This behavior is supported by research showing that cyclists show greater tolerance to narrower trajectories compared to e-scooters [37; 41]. Zone 3, which is used by a minority of cyclists (20%), represents a choice of more outer lanes that might be preferred by less experienced or more cautious users. The low usage of Zone 1 (approx. 2%) shows that, similar to e-scooters, very narrow trajectories are not considered ideal for entering the roundabout. This underlines the preference for less constrained trajectories to minimize the risk of instability during transitions [40]. * Circulation phase: Cyclists significantly move toward Zone 1 (50%), taking advantage of the higher stability of the bicycle to ride narrower trajectories near the center island. This choice minimizes the distance covered and allows a constant and sufficiently high speed. This result is consistent with studies showing that bicycles can maintain high speeds even on tighter trajectories [39; 42]. Zone 2 is used by a considerable proportion of users (35%), probably by those who want to compensate for the proximity to the central island with a route that leaves room for possible corrections. Zone 3 is used less frequently (15%), suggesting that few cyclists choose outer routes, probably because they are perceived as less efficient during circulation. It is worth noting that no cyclists use Zone 4 or the zones further out. * Exit phase: Cyclists are mainly distributed between Zone 2 (72%) and Zone 3 (25%), with Zone 1 (3%) hardly being used. The strong presence in Zone 2 reflects a preference for trajectories that combine a smooth transition to the destination leg with stable control during acceleration. The proportion of cyclists using Zone 3 could be due to less experienced users or those preferring external routes to increase visibility and awareness of the surrounding space. The limited use of Zone 1 suggests that cyclists do not tend to ride too close to the central island, which could limit maneuverability or cause difficulties in controlling speed during the acceleration phase typical of exiting the roundabout. This confirms that very narrow trajectories are not ideal to ensure stability during the exit phase, which is confirmed by studies on predicting vehicle trajectories on roundabouts [43; 44]. Then, for each of the 78 crossing maneuvers, the average vehicle speed was estimated for the entry section, the circulatory roadway, and the exit section. These speed values were calculated on the basis of instantaneous measurements taken with the Tracker software. Figure 8 shows the cumulative speed distributions for e-scooters (a) and bicycles (b) for the three phases of the crossing maneuver.