Comparison Of Cyclists Research Articles

The planned and the perceived city: A comparison of cyclists' and decision-makers' views on cycling quality

IntroductionTraffic jams, congestion and pollution demand sustainable modes of transport. To increase the appeal of cycling, bicycle-users' perceptions and needs should be acknowledged by decision-makers. However, traditional transport planning mainly focuses on quantitative, infrastructural data. To address this gap, this study explores to what extent decision-makers are aware of cyclists' needs and perceptions. Furthermore, the study compares the assessments about cycling of decision-makers and cyclists in the city of Leipzig, Germany. MethodsQualitative Interviews with 13 cyclists and similarly structured interviews with 6 experts from politics and planning were compared using qualitative content analysis. Two main topics were examined: (1) the reasons for cycling and (2) the perceived environment (built, natural and individually perceived). To integrate the spatial context, the interviewees draw sketch maps which were analyzed and compared using geo-information systems. ResultsExperts assume that main roads with cycling infrastructure are decisive for fast and safe cycling and cyclists agree with this statement. However, cyclists further refer to the positive effects of green spaces, the experience of the natural environment (e.g. fresh air) as well as the healthy and recreational effect of cycling. Cyclists prefer taking side roads and are prepared to use detours to integrate the natural environment and avoid traffic jams, noise and air pollution – these aspects were rarely acknowledged by decision-makers. DiscussionWe conclude that urban planners need to involve cyclists' perceptions more explicitly. Integrating cyclists' experiences in planning processes using sketch maps and interviews are beneficial, complementing quantitative approaches to enhance the understanding of cyclist behavior. The findings are essential to stress the importance of participatory approaches in urban planning to promote a sustainable, healthy and environmentally friendly urban development appropriate to citizens' needs.

Exposure to particulate matter in traffic: A comparison of cyclists and car passengers

Emerging evidence suggests that short episodes of high exposure to air pollution occur while commuting. These events can result in potentially adverse health effects. We present a quantification of the exposure of car passengers and cyclists to particulate matter (PM). We have simultaneously measured concentrations (PNC, PM2.5 and PM10) and ventilatory parameters (minute ventilation (VE), breathing frequency and tidal volume) in three Belgian locations (Brussels, Louvain-la-Neuve and Mol) for 55 persons (38 male and 17 female). Subjects were first driven by car and then cycled along identical routes in a pairwise design. Concentrations and lung deposition of PNC and PM mass were compared between biking trips and car trips. Mean bicycle/car ratios for PNC and PM are close to 1 and rarely significant. The size and magnitude of the differences in concentrations depend on the location which confirms similar inconsistencies reported in literature. On the other hand, the results from this study demonstrate that bicycle/car differences for inhaled quantities and lung deposited dose are large and consistent across locations. These differences are caused by increased VE in cyclists which significantly increases their exposure to traffic exhaust. The VE while riding a bicycle is 4.3 times higher compared to car passengers. This aspect has been ignored or severely underestimated in previous studies. Integrated health risk evaluations of transport modes or cycling policies should therefore use exposure estimates rather than concentrations.

Comparison of cyclists' and motorists' utilitarian physical activity at an urban university

Objective Preliminary comparison of cyclists and motorists on: (1) distance lived from campus and, (2) the impact of transportation mode on physical activity. Methods A purposive sample of students ( n = 50; cyclists = 26, motorists = 24) living < 5 miles from Arizona State University campus wore an accelerometer and completed a travel log for two on-campus days during fall 2005–spring 2006. Residence distance to campus was calculated by geocoded addresses ( n = 45; cyclists = 23 vs. motorists = 22). Final outcome variables were: distance lived from campus, accelerometer time moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, steps/day, total time moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (logged minutes cycling + accelerometer-derived moderate-to-vigorous physical activity), and minutes total active commuting (logged walking + cycling). Results Groups were significantly different for: distance lived from campus (cyclists = 0.6 ± 0.6 vs. motorists = 2.0 ± 1.1 miles; p < 0.000); steps/day (cyclists = 11,051 ± 4295 vs. motorists = 9174 ± 3319; p = 0.046); total time moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (cyclists = 85.7 ± 37.0 vs. motorists = 50.3 ± 23.8 minutes; p < 0.001); minutes in motorized transport (cyclists = 24.9 ± 27.5 vs. motorists = 61.6 ± 32.9; p < 0.001); and total active transport (cyclists = 59.4 ± 32.4 vs. motorists = 29.5 ± 20.0; p < 0.001). Conclusion Among students living within 5 miles of campus, cyclists lived relatively closer to campus, accumulated more minutes of physical activity, and spent more time in active transportation than students who used motorized means.

Kinematic comparison of cyclists with and without knee injuries

Kinematic comparison of cyclists with and without knee injuries