Presentation at International Cycling Safety Congress (ICSC) 2016, Bologna

1. A review of current online bicycle routing portals
and their potential role in promoting safer bicycling
Martin Loidl | martin.loidl@sbg.ac.at
Robin Wendel | robin.wendel@sbg.ac.at
Bernhard Zagel | bernhard.zagel@sbg.ac.at
International Cycling Safety Congress
Bologna, Nov. 3rd- 4th 2016

2. 2
safety = f (infrastructure + x)
Photos: M. Loidl (Salzburg)

3.  Gold standard: separated cycling facilities
 e.g. Pucher & Buehler 2008, Teschke et al. 2012
 But: we don‘t ride in an ideal world
Safety
3
Photo: ECF (Flickr, CC)
Options?

4. Safety
4
Provide adequate and safe infrastructure 
Equip and train bicyclists 
Provide information about safe routes 
Safety concerns „Ideal world“Information
 Keep people
from riding
 Infrastructure
 Route choice
Effect?

5.  Debate on role of information in mode choice
 Behaviour change through information? » e.g. Innocenti et al. (2013):
“first choice bias”
 Little research on information and route choice among bicyclists
 Bicycle routing ≠ car routing
Current situation
5
Route choice
criteria
Age
Gender
Trip purpose
Experience
Equipment
Physical condition

6. Route choice criteria
6
Hochmair (2005)
Broach et al. (2012)
Krenn et al. (2014)

7.  ± consensus on relevant routing criteria
 Hochmair (2005) applies them to routing information » classes:
Route choice criteria
7

8. Route optimization
8
 Model-based
 Crash data (prevent roads with more occurrences)
 User feedback

9.  Pre-route planning apps and mobile navigation devices
 Crowd-sourced data
Current situation
9
Hypothesis:
Safety is hardly ever addressed explicitly in
information/ routing/ navigation applications.

10.  30 pre-trip route planning web applications
 Freely available, no registration, desktop version
Evaluation
10
Criteria defining “safety” according to
Hochmair (2005) Routing criteria
 Safe Area
 Lighted at Night
 Avoid Busy Intersections
 Bike Lane
 Good Street Condition
 Avoid Public Transport
 No Wrong-Enter of One-Ways
 Avoid Roundabouts
 Distance
 Time
 Gradient
 Pavement
 Road Category
 Safety (+ definition, if available)
 Scenery (+ definition, if available)
 Comfort (+ definition, if available)
 Other

11. Data
11
Evaluation data are available:
https://gicycle.wordpress.com

12.  Bicycle routing is not a niche functionality!
 Rich variety of content, functionality, usability
 Major differences between bicycle routing portal and routing portal
with bicycle routing functionality
Results
12
https://www.google.com/maps http://efa.vvs.de/bike

13.  Most often verbally labeled routing criteria
 Hardly ever with explanation and/or documentation
Results
13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NumberofRoutingCriteria
Median = 3

14.  „Safety“ as routing criterion
Results
14
Hochmair (2005)
Routing criteria

15.  No correlation between routing criteria, data source and
geographical coverage
Results
15

16.  „Safety“ as relevant topic widely ignored
 Thus, effect of information provision for route choice can not be
assessed
 Implicit consideration of safety aspects
 Bicycle infrastructure
 „Comfortable“ routes
 Complexity of route choice not appropriately reflected
 One-fits-it-all solutions
 Data and technology are not the limiting factors
 Open data, OGD, crowdsourcing initiatives
Discussion
16

17. Conclusions
17
Winters et al. (2011)

18.  Safety is critical for mode choice + route choice
 Route choice is complex and individual
 Data and technology allow for adaption, personalization, real-time, …
 Objective and subjective safety threats
 Models, analyses + feedback, crowdsourced data
 Geographical Information Systems (GIS) have the capabilities
to integrated various perspectives and fuel user-tailored
information portals
Conclusions
18
@gicycle_
gicycle.wordpress.com

19. BROACH, J., DILL, J. & GLIEBE, J. 2012. Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46, 1730–1740.
HOCHMAIR, H. 2005. Towards a classification of route selection criteria for route planning tools. In: FISHER, P. (ed.) Developments
in Spatial Data Handling. Springer.
INNOCENTI, A., LATTARULO, P. & PAZIENZA, M. G. 2013. Car stickiness: Heuristics and biases in travel choice. Transport Policy, 25,
158-168.
KRENN, P. J., OJA, P. & TITZE, S. 2014. Route choices of transport bicyclists: a comparison of actually used and shortest routes.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11, 1-7.
WINTERS, M., DAVIDSON, G., KAO, D. & TESCHKE, K. 2011. Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: comparing influences on
decisions to ride. Transportation, 38, 153-168.
References
19