The perception of commuting by bike may be a more important factor than perceived bike safety when deciding how to commute. To move more recreational bikers to commute via bike, changing people’s perception of biking as not only a recreational activity, but also a commute mode, may be a useful strategy.

1. Differentiating Commuters on Perceived Bike Safety & Transportation Attributes
Tian Guo, M.S., Arielle Courtney, Graduate Research Assistant, & Ingrid Schneider, Ph.D.
Introduction & Purpose
Discussion
A special thank you to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for
project support. Photos courtesy of: Explore Minnesota, Minneapolis St.
Paul Business Journal, and The Star Tribune, Bike Walk Move, and
University of Minnesota.
Overall summary
• Perceived bike safety & most transportation attributes did
not significantly differ among groups, despite contrary
findings in past literature
• Twin Cities bike culture may provide a higher sense of
safety due to existing infrastructure
• The overall perception of commuting by bike might be a
more important factor than perceived bike safety
• Changing people’s perception of biking as not only a
recreational activity, but also a commute mode, may be a
useful strategy to promote active transport
Future Research
• Differentiate between biking purposes
• Experiments with controlled perceived bike safety
Active transportation is beneficial for both human health & the
environment. Biking is positioned to become a major form of
active transportation given existing recreational use. Biking for
outdoor recreation increased 63% from 1983 to 2009. Still, fewer
than 1% of workers bike commuted (U.S. American Community
Survey, 2009).
Toward understanding & potentially moving recreational bikers to
commuting, differences among 3 groups of commuters were
assessed regarding
- perceived bike safety,
- transportation attributes, &
- demographics.
These areas were chosen based on past research & the
opportunity to overcome differences in satisfaction & safety
perceptions.
Data collection
• Mail survey to a random, representative sample of
Minnesotans in 2011 using Dillman et al. (2009) technique
• 1750 returns from the Twin Cities metropolitan area with
regional response rate of 43%
Measurement
• Transportation mode & outdoor biking within last 12 months
• Perceived bike safety & satisfaction with transportation
attributes on 7-point Likert scales (See below for example)
Analysis
• Descriptive statistics & comparison using ANOVA &
ANCOVA, controlling for commute distance
Controlling commute distance & perceptions
• No differences in safety perceptions
• No controls, cycling commuters > satisfied with
commuting time (F-value=4.63, p-value=0.01) & > aware
of air pollution issues in their community (F-value=3.46, p-
value=0.03)
• Controlling for commute distance: commute time & air
pollution no longer significant, bike commuters < satisfied
with clearing sidewalks of snow & ice (F-value=3.31, p-
value=.05)
Bike frequency, commute distance, & demographics
• Bike frequency: cycling commuters >recreation-only
cyclists
• Commute distance: cycling commuters < recreation-only
cyclists or no-cycle commuters
• Age: cycling commuters < no-cycling commuters
• Recreation-only commuters > male & > income than other
groups
Of the 1750 responses from metro area residents, 57% commuted to work.
Among commuters:
• Majority male (67%), non-Hispanic (98%), & white (100%); average age 51
• Driving alone dominant transport option for work, shopping, &
recreational trips, 5% of commuters commuted to work by bike 78% also
drove alone to work.
Acknowledgments
Results: Comparing commuters
Figure 4. Average perceived bike safety, Twin Cities, Minnesota, 2011
Figure 5. Average satisfaction with transportation attributes, Twin Cities, Minnesota, 2011. *Note: For air
pollution, 7=it is an issue in the community; striped bars indicated statistically significant difference
Figure 3. Travel mode for recreation among
Twin Cities sample, Minnesota, 2011 (%)
80%
5%
6%
1% 4%
3% 1%
Drive alone
Car‐pool
Bus (public)
Metro trains
Bike
Walk
Taxi/shuttle
53%
24%
2%
3%
7%
10%
1%
Results: Commute choices
Methods
Results: Perceived safety & satisfaction with transportation attributes
Figure 2. Travel mode for work among Twin
Cities sample, Minnesota, 2011 (%)
Whether commute to work
Yes
Whether biked in the past 12 months
Whether bike to/from work
Excluded from analysis
No
Whether bike for
recreationNo
No-cycle commuters
n=456
Yes
Cycling commuters
n=48
Recreation commuters
n=86
Yes
Excluded from
analysis
Figure 1. Sample segmentation by cycling participation:
commuting, recreation or none
Safetyperception,7=verysafe
Attributessatisfaction,7=very
satisfied*
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Road safety with
other drivers
Road safety
excluding other
drivers
Community
safety for
bicyclists
Too much traffic
to bike
Bike safety with
roadway design
Bike safety with
traffic and speeds
No-cycle Recreation-only Cycling commuters
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
On road bike
lanes
Commute time
to & from
work*
Access to
sidewalks
Clearing roads
of snow and
ice
Clearing
sidewalks of
snow and ice
Noise
pollution from
traffic
Air pollution*
No-cycle Recreation-only Cycling commuters
A collaboration of the University of Minnesota Extension &
College of Food, Agricultural & Natural Resource Sciences