Do risk-taking cyclists have different socio-demographic characteristics?

By Florent Varet

Cycling as a mode of transport, especially in cities, is becoming increasingly promoted and popular. It is associated with several benefits, such as improved health, reduced air pollution and congestion in urban areas, while being a relatively low-cost mode of transport. However, cyclists are one of the most vulnerable types of road users. In Europe, they are the only mode of transport where the number of fatalities has not fallen over the last decade. These risks pose a significant challenge to transport planning and road safety and may discourage the use and promotion of cycling. Reducing the number of accidents involving cyclists would not only save lives and prevent serious injuries, but also encourage.

Although factors external to cyclists play a very important role in the occurrence of accidents involving them (e.g., the quality of the road infrastructure, the behavior of other road users), the role of risky behavior by cyclists themselves cannot be ignored (e.g., running red-lights, not wearing a helmet). Reducing the incidence of risky behavior among cyclists is therefore one way (among others) of reducing the number of accidents involving this population. But in order to do this successfully (e.g., through awareness campaigns or financial incentives), we need to know which cyclists are the most likely to take risks on the road. Having this information would allow us to focus behavior change initiatives on the right population and tailor them to their characteristics.

Although several studies have already looked at this issue, their results are not always consistent, so further research is needed. In this context, our team observed the behavior of cyclists, at two traffic light intersections in the city center of Lille, northern France. A total of 2,788 cyclists were observed between April and June 2022. Two cameras per site were used to score each cyclist’s behaviors (not wearing a helmet, running the red-light), their observable socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age) and the type of bike used (private or shared).

Compared with women and older people, we found that men and young cyclists were less likely to wear a helmet and more likely to run the red-light, a finding that has been seen in previous studies, but not in all of them. This may be explained by the tendency of men and young people to take greater risks than women and older people in different types of activity. These gender and age differences are classically explained by a combination of evolutionary, biological and psychosocial factors, such as men’s and young people’s increased sensitivity to short-term benefits (e.g., saving time by running a traffic light) but sensitivity to longer-term benefits (e.g., avoiding a cycling accident) compared with women and older people. Behavior change interventions could therefore benefit from targeting male and young cyclists as a priority and adapting to their specificities. Compared to private bike users, shared bike users were less likely to wear a helmet and less likely to ride through red lights. These results suggest that bike share users may represent a specific population of cyclists who are generally less cautious, perhaps due to differences in the motivations behind their journeys or in their psychological relationship with cycling or they experience of cycling. It might be interesting to test these assumptions in further studies before developing specific interventions for people who mainly use shared bikes.

Finally, some of the results of this study are consistent with previous studies and some other are not. This suggests that the socio-demographic characteristics associated with more frequent risk taking while cycling may differ from one culture or environment to another. In conclusion, this study contributes to the scientific literature that encourages the development and evaluation of behavioral interventions tailored to the sociodemographic and psychological characteristics of cyclists. Importantly, such interventions should not conflict with support for other interventions targeting road users likely to be a source of danger to cyclists or aimed at improving road infrastructure.