Immoral and irrational cyclists? Exploring the practice of cycling on the pavement

Figures & data

Figure 1. Screenshots from a handle-bar mounted, forward-facing camera in Field Study 1, where the cyclist rode on the street

Figure 2. Screenshots from a handle-bar mounted forward-facing camera in Field Study 1, where the cyclist rode on the pavement

Figure 3. Participant riding on the pavement. Screenshot from the following experimental leader’s handle-bar mounted camera in Field Study 2

Table 1. Pavement riding propensity for different cyclist groups in Field Studies 1 and 2, on the 685 m long road stretch with mixed traffic. (part. = participant, conf. = confident, unconf. = unconfident; total time is presented as mean and standard deviation.)

	Field Study 1				Field Study 2
group (self-reported riding speed)	slower than average	average speed	faster than average	e-bike	bike – conf.	bike – unconf.	car – conf.	car – unconf.
# part.	9	12	10	10	6	6	5	6
total time (min)	3.0 ± 1.0	2.7 ± 0.4	2.3 ± 0.3	2.3 ± 0.4	2.6 ± 0.4	3.0 ± 0.7	2.6 ± 0.4	3.1 ± 0.3
% cyclists on pavement	78 %	33.3 %	50 %	30 %	33.3 %	0 %	60 %	33.3 %
% time on pavement	33.4 %	15.1 %	6.2 %	14.7 %	18.2 %	0 %	15.1 %	9.9 %
% time on pavement for pavement rides only	54.7 %	45.2 %	15.6 %	49.0 %	46.4 %	0 %	22.1 %	27.3 %

Table 2. Distribution of indicated route choice depending on the infrastructural design in percentage. The figures do not add up to 100%, as respondents had the option of indicating ‘other’ when marking their route choice

	mixed traffic, signalled	mixed traffic, non-signalled	cycle lane on road, signalled	cycle lane on road, non-signalled	shared cycle path/pavement, signalled	dedicated cycle path, signalled	dedicated cycle path, non-signalled	tunnel
road only	53.9	41.4	58.1	45.4	17.3	16.0	12.6	10.2
road + pedestrian facilities	20.4	24.8	22.4	28.8
cycling facilities only (also shared with pedestrians)					78.4	60.7	63.5	83.3
pedestrian facilities only	22.4	30.1	16.3	22.2		18.5	21.7