1 Introduction
1.1 E-scooter riding in Germany
1.2 E-scooter crash data
1.3 Perception of e-scooter riders by other vulnerable road users
1.4 E-scooter riders' infrastructure preferences
1.5 E-scooter riders' rule knowledge
1.6 Aim and research design
2 Observation
2.1 Observation methods
2.1.1 Observation sites and tool
Type of infrastructure | Sites | Speed limit (road) | Characteristics |
---|---|---|---|
Off-road bike lanea (+ sidewalk and road) | B1 | 50 km/h | Nightlife hotspot; physical barrier to sidewalk |
B2 | 30 km/h | Bus station next to bike lane; high pedestrian density | |
On-road bike laneb (+ sidewalk and road) | D1 | 20 km/h | Tourism hotspot; large square with high amenity value |
B3 | 50 km/h | Nightlife hotspot | |
Road (+ sidewalk) | B4 | 50 km/h | Tourism hotspot |
D2 | 7 km/h | Tourism hotspot; high pedestrian density; cobbled road |
2.1.2 Observation measures
-
Apparent sex Coded as female, male, and not answerable (when unidentifiable).
-
Apparent age Coded by trained observers as child (< 14 years), adolescent (15–20 years), young adult (21–40 years), adult (41–65 years), senior (> 65 years), or N/A (when unidentifiable).
-
Mode Type of vehicle used by the observed e-scooter rider; coded as shared e-scooter, private e-scooter, or N/A (when unidentifiable).
-
Type of infrastructure Infrastructure the e-scooter rider was using when they entered the observation area. Available infrastructure depended on the site (see Table 1 for details).
-
Incidents Based on definitions within the German Traffic Conflict Technique Manual [12], interactions and conflicts were differentiated by the appearance of evasive actions. In addition, near single-vehicle crashes were coded. In recording potentially problematic events, we differentiated between interactions, conflicts, crashes, near single-vehicle crashes, and none.
-
Interaction A situation that would have led to a collision between the observed e-scooter rider and another road user if no one had braked or changed direction. The situation was easily resolved and controlled by the road users involved.
-
Conflict A situation that would have led to a collision between the observed e-scooter rider and another road user if no one had braked or changed direction. However, different from an Interaction, the observed e-scooter rider or the other involved road user had to brake or change direction of travel abruptly to prevent a collision (i.e., the level of urgency for action was heightened considerably).
-
Near single-vehicle crash E-scooter rider almost falls.
-
Crash Collision of an observed e-scooter rider with another road user.
-
None.
-
-
Other road user(s) involved in incidents. The types of road user(s) involved in an interaction, conflict, or crash were coded as follows:
-
Motorized transport
-
Cyclist
-
E-scooter
-
Pedestrian
-
2.1.3 Observation procedure
2.2 Observation results
2.2.1 Observation sample
Sociodemographic characteristic | Definition | % |
---|---|---|
(Apparent) sex | ||
Female | 24.7 | |
Male | 75.3 | |
(Apparent) age | ||
< 14 | 1.0 | |
14–20 | 16.5 | |
21–40 | 67.6 | |
41–65 | 14.6 | |
65 + | 0.1 | |
Mode | ||
Shared e-scooter | 94.4 | |
Private e-scooter | 5.6 |
2.2.2 Inter-rater reliability
2.2.3 Infrastructure use
2.2.3.1 Off-road bike lane (+ sidewalk and road)
2.2.3.2 On-road bike lane (+ sidewalk and road)
2.2.3.3 No bike infrastructure (+ sidewalk and road)
2.2.4 Incidents involving other road users and type of infrastructure
Incident | Involved road user(s) | n | % |
---|---|---|---|
Interaction | N/A | 3 | 8.3 |
Pedestrian | 16 | 44.4 | |
Cyclist | 7 | 19.4 | |
E-scooter rider | 1 | 2.8 | |
Motorist | 6 | 16.7 | |
Conflict | Pedestrian and cyclist | 1 | 2.8 |
Near single-vehicle crash | – | 2 | 5.6 |
3 Survey
3.1 Survey methods
3.1.1 Survey sites and tool
3.1.2 Survey items
3.1.3 Survey procedure
Items and response categories |
---|
Which infrastructure did you primarily use during your last trip? (a pictorial representation of the response categories was shown, see appendix) |
Off-road bike lane |
On-road bike lane |
Advisory bike lanea |
Road |
Sidewalk |
Pedestrian areab |
First time borrowing (never ridden before) |
Other: [free entry] |
Where do you feel safest when riding the e-scooter? (a pictorial representation of the response categories was shown, see appendix) |
Off-road bike lane |
On-road bike lane |
Advisory bike lanea |
Road |
Sidewalk |
Pedestrian areab |
Other: [free entry] |
Are you allowed to ride an e-scooter on the bike lane/bike path? (No response options were presented. The answers were coded by the interviewers.) |
Yes (correct) |
No (incorrect) |
Don't know |
Are you allowed to ride an e-scooter on the sidewalk? (No response options were presented. The answers were coded by the interviewers.) |
Yes (incorrect) |
No (correct) |
Don't know |
3.2 Survey results
3.2.1 Survey sample
Sociodemographic characteristic | Definition | Survey (n = 129) |
---|---|---|
(Apparent) sex | Female | 31.8 |
Male | 66.7 | |
N/A | 1.5 | |
(Apparent) age | < 14 | 0.8 |
14–20 | 18.6 | |
21–40 | 63.6 | |
41–65 | 14.7 | |
65 + | 0.8 | |
N/A | 1.6 | |
Mode | Shared e-scooter | 92.2 |
Private e-scooter | 7.8 | |
N/A | 0 | |
Locals | Yes | 14.0 |
No | 83.7 | |
N/A | 2.3 | |
Reason for stay, if not from the city | Tourist/visit/recreation | 73.6 |
Business trip | 7.0 | |
Commuter | 0 | |
N/A | 19.4 |