Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers

Vanessa Beanland, Michael G. Lenné, Elisabeth Fuessl, Manuel Oberlader, Somya Joshi, Thierry Bellet, Aurélie Banet, Lars Rößger, Lars Leden, Ioanna Spyropoulou, George Yannis, Hugo Roebroeck, José Carvalhais, Geoffrey Underwood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There has been limited development of advanced rider assistance systems and on-bike information systems for powered two-wheelers (PTWs), even though research suggests that population-wide deployment of assistive systems could significantly reduce PTW crashes. This study aims to understand general and system-specific factors that are likely to influence acceptability of PTW assistive systems, including barriers that may prevent uptake and proper use of systems, through a large-scale survey of European riders. The survey was available in seven languages and attracted 6297 respondents. Respondents were frequent riders, who rode primarily for leisure purposes and had high awareness of assistive systems. Cluster analysis revealed two groups based on overall acceptability of assistive systems. The moderate and low acceptance clusters differed in terms of riding practices, risk perception, attitudes towards rule breaking, and some personality traits. Overall acceptability was low, but riders who perceive greater risk in riding display higher acceptability. Acceptability was highest for systems that do not interfere with the riding task, are well-known and/or considered reliable (e.g., night vision, ABS, eCall, advanced front-lighting system). In general, riders believe that existing safety equipment (e.g., helmets, protective clothing) is more reliable, provides greater resistance, and is considerably cheaper than more sophisticated assistive technology. Riders believe that innovations should focus on protective equipment, since they believe crash prevention is better addressed through rider training. Finally, riders felt there should be more emphasis on vehicle tyre condition, while tyre pressure control systems were identified as potentially helpful.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)63-76
JournalTransportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
Volume19
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

two-wheeler
Tires
Risk perception
Protective clothing
Pressure control
Cluster analysis
Information systems
Innovation
Lighting
Night Vision
Equipment Safety
Protective Clothing
Control systems
Self-Help Devices
Head Protective Devices
Leisure Activities
Information Systems
Cluster Analysis
Personality
Language

Keywords

  • acceptability
  • acceptance
  • assistive systems
  • ITS
  • mopeds
  • motorcycles

Cite this

Beanland, V., Lenné, M. G., Fuessl, E., Oberlader, M., Joshi, S., Bellet, T., ... Underwood, G. (2013). Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 19, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.003
Beanland, Vanessa ; Lenné, Michael G. ; Fuessl, Elisabeth ; Oberlader, Manuel ; Joshi, Somya ; Bellet, Thierry ; Banet, Aurélie ; Rößger, Lars ; Leden, Lars ; Spyropoulou, Ioanna ; Yannis, George ; Roebroeck, Hugo ; Carvalhais, José ; Underwood, Geoffrey. / Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers. In: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2013 ; Vol. 19. pp. 63-76.
@article{2fd9082da1ea4c2198ac04c3611e23a3,
title = "Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers",
abstract = "There has been limited development of advanced rider assistance systems and on-bike information systems for powered two-wheelers (PTWs), even though research suggests that population-wide deployment of assistive systems could significantly reduce PTW crashes. This study aims to understand general and system-specific factors that are likely to influence acceptability of PTW assistive systems, including barriers that may prevent uptake and proper use of systems, through a large-scale survey of European riders. The survey was available in seven languages and attracted 6297 respondents. Respondents were frequent riders, who rode primarily for leisure purposes and had high awareness of assistive systems. Cluster analysis revealed two groups based on overall acceptability of assistive systems. The moderate and low acceptance clusters differed in terms of riding practices, risk perception, attitudes towards rule breaking, and some personality traits. Overall acceptability was low, but riders who perceive greater risk in riding display higher acceptability. Acceptability was highest for systems that do not interfere with the riding task, are well-known and/or considered reliable (e.g., night vision, ABS, eCall, advanced front-lighting system). In general, riders believe that existing safety equipment (e.g., helmets, protective clothing) is more reliable, provides greater resistance, and is considerably cheaper than more sophisticated assistive technology. Riders believe that innovations should focus on protective equipment, since they believe crash prevention is better addressed through rider training. Finally, riders felt there should be more emphasis on vehicle tyre condition, while tyre pressure control systems were identified as potentially helpful.",
keywords = "acceptability, acceptance, assistive systems, ITS, mopeds, motorcycles",
author = "Vanessa Beanland and Lenn{\'e}, {Michael G.} and Elisabeth Fuessl and Manuel Oberlader and Somya Joshi and Thierry Bellet and Aur{\'e}lie Banet and Lars R{\"o}{\ss}ger and Lars Leden and Ioanna Spyropoulou and George Yannis and Hugo Roebroeck and Jos{\'e} Carvalhais and Geoffrey Underwood",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.003",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "63--76",
journal = "Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour",
issn = "1369-8478",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Beanland, V, Lenné, MG, Fuessl, E, Oberlader, M, Joshi, S, Bellet, T, Banet, A, Rößger, L, Leden, L, Spyropoulou, I, Yannis, G, Roebroeck, H, Carvalhais, J & Underwood, G 2013, 'Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers', Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 19, pp. 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.003

Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers. / Beanland, Vanessa; Lenné, Michael G.; Fuessl, Elisabeth; Oberlader, Manuel; Joshi, Somya; Bellet, Thierry; Banet, Aurélie; Rößger, Lars; Leden, Lars; Spyropoulou, Ioanna; Yannis, George; Roebroeck, Hugo; Carvalhais, José; Underwood, Geoffrey.

In: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 19, 2013, p. 63-76.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers

AU - Beanland, Vanessa

AU - Lenné, Michael G.

AU - Fuessl, Elisabeth

AU - Oberlader, Manuel

AU - Joshi, Somya

AU - Bellet, Thierry

AU - Banet, Aurélie

AU - Rößger, Lars

AU - Leden, Lars

AU - Spyropoulou, Ioanna

AU - Yannis, George

AU - Roebroeck, Hugo

AU - Carvalhais, José

AU - Underwood, Geoffrey

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - There has been limited development of advanced rider assistance systems and on-bike information systems for powered two-wheelers (PTWs), even though research suggests that population-wide deployment of assistive systems could significantly reduce PTW crashes. This study aims to understand general and system-specific factors that are likely to influence acceptability of PTW assistive systems, including barriers that may prevent uptake and proper use of systems, through a large-scale survey of European riders. The survey was available in seven languages and attracted 6297 respondents. Respondents were frequent riders, who rode primarily for leisure purposes and had high awareness of assistive systems. Cluster analysis revealed two groups based on overall acceptability of assistive systems. The moderate and low acceptance clusters differed in terms of riding practices, risk perception, attitudes towards rule breaking, and some personality traits. Overall acceptability was low, but riders who perceive greater risk in riding display higher acceptability. Acceptability was highest for systems that do not interfere with the riding task, are well-known and/or considered reliable (e.g., night vision, ABS, eCall, advanced front-lighting system). In general, riders believe that existing safety equipment (e.g., helmets, protective clothing) is more reliable, provides greater resistance, and is considerably cheaper than more sophisticated assistive technology. Riders believe that innovations should focus on protective equipment, since they believe crash prevention is better addressed through rider training. Finally, riders felt there should be more emphasis on vehicle tyre condition, while tyre pressure control systems were identified as potentially helpful.

AB - There has been limited development of advanced rider assistance systems and on-bike information systems for powered two-wheelers (PTWs), even though research suggests that population-wide deployment of assistive systems could significantly reduce PTW crashes. This study aims to understand general and system-specific factors that are likely to influence acceptability of PTW assistive systems, including barriers that may prevent uptake and proper use of systems, through a large-scale survey of European riders. The survey was available in seven languages and attracted 6297 respondents. Respondents were frequent riders, who rode primarily for leisure purposes and had high awareness of assistive systems. Cluster analysis revealed two groups based on overall acceptability of assistive systems. The moderate and low acceptance clusters differed in terms of riding practices, risk perception, attitudes towards rule breaking, and some personality traits. Overall acceptability was low, but riders who perceive greater risk in riding display higher acceptability. Acceptability was highest for systems that do not interfere with the riding task, are well-known and/or considered reliable (e.g., night vision, ABS, eCall, advanced front-lighting system). In general, riders believe that existing safety equipment (e.g., helmets, protective clothing) is more reliable, provides greater resistance, and is considerably cheaper than more sophisticated assistive technology. Riders believe that innovations should focus on protective equipment, since they believe crash prevention is better addressed through rider training. Finally, riders felt there should be more emphasis on vehicle tyre condition, while tyre pressure control systems were identified as potentially helpful.

KW - acceptability

KW - acceptance

KW - assistive systems

KW - ITS

KW - mopeds

KW - motorcycles

U2 - 10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.003

DO - 10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.003

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 63

EP - 76

JO - Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

JF - Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

SN - 1369-8478

ER -