## 4 Analysis and Results  
### Statistical Analysis of Public Questionnaire Data  
Table 4 shows the average and standard deviation of each item in the public questionnaire. From data statistics, the scores of the three variables are all between 3.2 and 3.3. Variable A has a score of 3.238, indicating the public generally regards running a red light to be dangerous behavior (A1 \(\sim\) A6), but two items of variable A (A5 and A6) have lower scores. The scores of variable A reflect that the public's awareness of observing traffic rules is relatively poor. The score of variable B is 3.278, indicating they are more supportive of the effect of using FRT (B1 \(\sim\) B6). Among items of variable B, only the scores of B2 are lower than the average scores, and the results reflect that FRT is less effective in improving the safety awareness of the public. Variable C has the highest score of 3.297, indicating they generally view that FRT does not violate their privacy (C1 \(\sim\) C5). However, C5 has the lowest score of 3.019, suggesting that the public is less concerned about the right to know the use of FRT. Above all, the public generally supports monitoring red-light running behavior by using FRT without worrying about privacy invasion too much. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Item** & **M** & **S.D.** & **Variable Average** \\ \hline A1: Red-light running behavior of e-bikers has a negative impact on traffic. & 3.225 & 0.960 \\ A2: Even if I have good riding skills, running a red light may be dangerous. & 3.256 & 0.782 \\ A: Attitudes toward red-light running behavior of e-bikers & 3.302 & 0.865 \\ \hline A4: Red-light running behavior is irresponsible to lives. & 3.318 & 0.784 \\ A5: More e-bikers are running red-light in China cities, and management needs to be strengthened. & 3.140 & 0.806 \\ A6: I am familiar with the traffic regulations related to e-bikes, and I ride per the regulations. & 3.186 & 0.849 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The average and standard deviation of each item in the public questionnaire, \(n=258\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Demographic Variable** & **Category** & **Number** & **Percentage** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Gender} & Male & 126 & 48.8\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Female & 132 & 51.2\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Age} & 18–36 & 120 & 46.5\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & 37–54 & 114 & 44.2\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & \(>\)54 & 24 & 9.3\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Education level} & Junior high school and below & 34 & 13.2\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Senior high school & 87 & 33.7\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & College and undergraduate & 112 & 43.4\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Postgraduate and above & 25 & 9.7\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Driving license} & Have & 160 & 62.0\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & Do not have & 98 & 38.0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Demographic information of the public. The research uses Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. The Mann-Whitney U test is used to explore: (a) Whether different genders and driving license statuses resulted in differences in the three variables regarding attitudes toward red-light running behavior of e-bikers, (b) determine the application effect of FRT, and (c) whether FRT violates privacy. There is no significant difference in terms of public's gender and three variables. However, there is a significant difference in terms of driving license status and the public's attitudes toward red-light running behavior (U = 998.000, \(p\) < 0.001) and the application effect of FRT (U = 2865.5, \(p\) < 0.001). However, there is no significant difference in the public's attitudes toward privacy invasion. The Kruskal-Wallis test is used to explore whether the public's different ages and education levels resulted in differences in the three variables of public attitudes. There is no significant difference in terms of age and the three variables.