What makes bicyclists comfortable? Insights from a visual preference survey of casual and prospective bicyclists

Abstract

• Comfort in different bicycling environments measured using a visual preference survey. • Bike infrastructure and low traffic speeds generate higher comfort ratings. • People without a predisposition to bicycle are unlikely to feel comfortable with even the best-designed on-road facilities. • Planning for a “design person” and setting a minimum infrastructure standard could increase comfort for all. Understanding what environments are comfortable (and perceived as safe) for bicyclists is essential for increasing bicycling, particularly for non-experienced riders. Surveys probing people’s qualitative perceptions about bicycling environments can inform bicycle planning in important ways. In this study we use survey data from an on-line video experiment to analyze bicycling comfort and its relationship with person-level and road-level variables. We use an existing survey of students, faculty, and staff at UC Davis (n = 3089) who rated video clips of bicycling facilities in different environments based on their perceived comfort as a part of the annual UC Davis Campus Travel Survey (CTS). The video clips come from a variety of urban and semi-rural roads around the San Francisco Bay Area where bicycling rates vary. Our results indicate considerable effects of socio-demographics and attitudes on absolute video ratings, but we find relative agreement about which videos are most comfortable and uncomfortable across our sample population segments. Presence of bike infrastructure and low speed roads are especially important in generating higher comfort ratings. However, our results suggest that even the best designed on-road bike facilities (according to attributes in our data) are unlikely to provide a comfortable bicycling environment for those without a predisposition to bicycle. Nonetheless, our results provide guidance for improving roads with on-street bike facilities where protected or separated facilities may not be suitable. We discuss these results in the context of design standards for bicycling and methods for prioritizing bike infrastructure investments.