G Model

AAP-4383; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing

middle-aged and elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional
bicycles
D.A.M. Twisk a,∗ , S. Platteel a , G.R. Lovegrove b
a
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, PO Box 93113, 2509 AC The Hague, The Netherlands
b
Engineering, Management & Education, The University of British Columbia, 1137 Alumni Ave, Kelowna BC V1 V 1V7, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Pedelecs, popular among elderly cyclists, are associated with a higher injury risk than conventional bicy-
Received 30 December 2015 cles. About 17% of these injuries are due to falls while (dis)mounting. Using instrumented bicycles, this
Received in revised form study aimed to identify factors contributing to the stability of self-chosen mounting methods in four
14 November 2016
user groups: 30–45 versus 65+ years of age and males versus females. Mounting stability on pedelecs
Accepted 9 January 2017
was compared with that on conventional bicycles, in controlled experimental setting (task in a fenced
Available online xxx
off parking lot) but also in real traffic conditions (traffic light turns green). Two mounting phases were
differentiated: phase 1 as the transition from ‘earth bound’ to ‘balance’ and phase 2 as the acceleration
Keywords:
Pedelec
to achieve harmonized cycling. Stability was operationalised in terms of the duration of these phases:
Elderly cyclists the shorter their duration, the higher the stability. Pedelecs were shown to be less stable in phase 1 than
Single-bicycle accidents conventional bicycles, irrespective of user group. For all user groups, only in phase 2 the advantages of
Stability electrical support kicked in. Results obtained in traffic conditions confirmed the patterns obtained in the
Muscle strength controlled setting, with as only difference a lower speed in traffic conditions, which held for both mount-
Mounting behaviour ing phases and bicycle types. Also measures of physical limitations due to low muscle strength were
shown only to be compensated for by pedal support in phase 2 and not in phase 1. Further, mounting
characteristics affected pedelec stability in phase 1 and not in phase 2. Higher stability was associated
with a) starting while seated and b) using the pedal to push off. Although, these mounting characteris-
tics were confounded with age, gender, and muscle strength, the pattern of results still suggest certain
mounting techniques to be more beneficial for pedelecs. The results further illustrate the importance
of a deeper understanding of the interactions of bicycle types and user groups on critical manoeuvres
and their potential contribution to the optimisation of pedelec design and the training of safe mounting
techniques.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction further specified in following sections (See 2.2) to comply with EU

In the Netherlands, the group of elderly cyclists (aged 65+) is
growing exponentially. Since life-expectancy continues to increase,
and the first Dutch baby-boomers have already hit 65, prognoses
are that the proportion of elderly in the population will rise to
24% in 2030 (Hoeymans et al., 2014). This age group also produces
the largest number of customers for electrically assisted bicycles
with pedal support up to 25 km/h, hereafter called pedelecs and
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Divera.Twisk@SWOV.nl (D.A.M. Twisk),
Gord.Lovegrove@ubc.ca (G.R. Lovegrove).
regulations (Hendriksen et al., 2008; Van Boggelen et al., 2013).
With rising age, specific tasks in traffic become increasingly diffi-
cult (e.g., Brouwer and Davidse, 2002). These physical limitations
may be one of the contributing factors for the rising numbers of seri-
ous injuries, especially among elderly cyclists (Twisk et al., 2015),
while the use of pedelecs might expose them to even higher injury
risks. Based on a case control study of cyclists seeking medical treat-
ment in hospital emergency rooms, Schepers et al. (2014) found
injury risks of pedelecs to be higher than that of conventional
bicycles, even after controlling for differences in age, gender and
mileage. The high injury risks of elderly cyclists are mainly associ-
ated with single bicycle crashes, accidents not involving other road
users (Weijermars et al., 2015, 2016). For elderly, 20–25% of injuries

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
0001-4575/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Twisk, D.A.M., et al., An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing middle-aged and
elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional bicycles. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
G Model
AAP-4383; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 D.A.M. Twisk et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
were reported to have occurred while mounting or dismounting
the bicycle. For younger age groups this injury cause was rarely
mentioned (Ormel et al., 2008). Also Schepers et al. (2014) found
relatively a high proportion of injuries on pedelecs being due to
falls while mounting or dismounting (17%) and only 8% on conven-
tional bicycles. Similar patterns were reported for injury accidents
among senior cyclists in Sweden (Rolfsman et al., 2012).
Not only accident studies show mounting to be a critical phase
with a high risk of falling. Also the relationship between speed
and stability points into that direction. Up to a speed of approx-
imately 12 km/h bicycles are not self-stabilizing, requiring rider
actions to keep balance by steering into the fall. After reaching that
critical speed, little rider actions are required to maintain balance
(Kooijman et al., 2011; Meijaard et al., 2007; Schwab et al., 2012).
Further, Dubbeldam’s study (2016) showed mounting to be more
safety critical than dismounting. That still more injuries occur while
dismounting (Kruijer et al., 2012) may be due to other interfering
factors such as emergency braking or other reasons for imbalance
requiring an unplanned dismount (Boele et al., in press). Also lab-
oratory studies comparing the response of elderly and younger
cyclist to a sudden disturbance showed these situations to be more
demanding for elderly cyclists to remain stable (Bulsink et al., In
press).
Studies so far have mainly looked at conventional bicycles and
not at pedelecs. If stability in the mounting phase on conven-
tional bicycles is lower In the elderly than in younger cyclists,
pedelecs may be beneficial for elderly cyclists, as was suggested by
Dubbeldam et al. (2016). Note that the higher risks as identified by
Schepers et al. (2014) may not be due to the higher risks of pedelecs
but to selective recruitment. That is, elderly who are more vulner-
able and in poor physical condition may prefer to use pedelecs
rather than conventional bicycles, while elderly in good physical
conditions may still prefer to use conventional bicycles. Further,
although the slightly higher speeds of pedelecs may increase crash
rates and injuries, the benefits may come from being able to fit into
the ‘normal’ speed patterns of other cyclists (Vlakveld et al., 2015),
and from being more stable in the mounting phase, since the pedal
support may help them to accelerate more quickly. However, one
problem often mentioned by users is the higher weight of pedelecs
(Franke-Bartholdt et al.„ 2014). Pedelecs are both 50% (9 kg) heav-
ier than conventional bicycles (Van Boggelen et al., 2013), as well as
top-heavy because of battery placement (usually on the rear rack).
The higher weight requires a higher physical effort to acquire stable
riding speeds, whereas the higher centre of gravity may destabilize
the rider-bicycle combination in the mounting phase. The present
study addresses the question whether the pedelec’s pedal support
in combination with higher weight and centre of gravity have a net
positive effect on acceleration speed in the mounting phase, and
whether that differs by user group, such as elderly and middle-aged
cyclists and males and females. An additional feature that requires
further investigation is that of the generalizability of the results
obtained in the controlled conditions. To explore this, the present
study compares mounting behaviour in controlled conditions with
similar manoeuvres in real traffic.
Positive effects of pedelecs may be expected especially for per-
sons with lower levels of muscle strength and physical fitness. Since
acceleration is an important feature for bicycle stability, and know-
ing that acceleration requires physical effort, muscle strength and
physical fitness might be influencing factors. In general, elderly
have lower muscle strength and are less fit than younger age
groups. Moreover stability and other functions in older age are also
associated with muscle strength (Schaap et al., 2013; Stel et al.,
2003). Still, little is known about the actual relationship of mus-
cle strength with stability. Therefore the present study assesses
the ‘fitness’ of its participants and relates that to their stability on
conventional bicycles and pedelecs.
Please cite this article in press as: Twisk, D.A.M., et al., An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing middle-aged and
elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional bicycles. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
In addition to age, gender, and muscle strength, the way in which
cyclists mount their bicycle may also affect their stability. Earlier
studies have identified two dominant mounting methods whose
use differs by age group and gender (Dubbeldam et al., 2016). So
far, little is known about the impact of these different methods on
stability in relation to age, gender and bicycle type.
A deeper understanding of these issues is deemed necessary
when considering interventions related to road infrastructure,
bicycle design, and training. For road infrastructure it is relevant
for allowing sufficient time and space for elderly cyclists to com-
plete essential manoeuvres such as crossing streets and negotiating
light controlled intersections. Thus, information from this type of
study should be fed into micro simulation models, and used in road
infrastructure design. For bicycle design, the results may be used
to set out a strategy to optimize the electrical support system for
different groups of cyclists or even for each individual. For training,
the results can be used to teach specific strategies depending on a
person’s age, or even to train from the onset of cycling, strategies
that are beneficial for a life time. To contribute to these understand-
ings the following research questions were addressed in this study,
thereby comparing conventional bicycles and pedelecs, males and
females, and middle aged and elderly cyclists:
Q1: To what extent is mounting stability associated with rider and
bicycle characteristics?
Q2: To what extent does stability differ in a natural setting from a
controlled setting?
Q3: Does muscle strength play a role in achieving stability?
Q4: To what extent has mounting method an additional effect on
stability?
The research questions 1, 3 and 4 lend themselves to be tested in
controlled experimental settings. Research question 2 needs to be
answered by comparing performance in controlled conditions with
that in natural conditions, in this case starting from a traffic light.
To overcome the earlier mentioned limitations due to selective
recruitment, each participant rode both bicycle types in counter
balanced order.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Sixty-one adults (30 women, 31 men) were recruited through
letters sent to approximately one thousand addresses in the area
of The Hague. Inclusion criteria were: either between 30 and 45
years of age (middle adulthood) or aged 65 years or above (elderly),
cycling regularly, being in good health, and being able to ride a
conventional bicycle. Experience with any type of pedelec was not
required. Participants received a gift voucher of 25 euros for their
participation. Data from two participants were excluded from data
analysis because of data collection failure, while data from two oth-
ers were excluded because of not meeting the inclusion criteria.
The physical characteristics of the middle aged group (n = 28), 39%
male, mean age 38, minimum age 30, maximum 45) and the elderly
(n = 29, 54% male, mean age 70, minimum 65, maximum 79) were in
line with expectations. Men compared to women were significantly
taller (M = 180 cm versus M = 166 cm; t(54) = −9.746; p < 0.001),
heavier (M = 82.6 versus M = 67.5; t(53) = −5.37; p < 0.001), and
stronger (M = 84.7 versus M = 56.7; t(54) = −5.99; p < 0.001). Men
and women did not differ significantly with respect to their BMI
(t(54) = −1.285; p = 0.204). Age groups only differed significantly on
hand grip strength, with elderly being less strong (M = 60.6) than
middle-aged participants (M = 78.8; F(1,54) = 11.06; p = 0.002). Fur-
ther, elderly cycled more frequently than middle-aged participants,
but the total distance per week did not differ.
G Model
AAP-4383; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.A.M. Twisk et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. The Pedelec, along with the instruments that the participants carried.
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Bicycles and instrumentation
Two identical instrumented bicycles were used. A conventional
bicycle, type Batavus Socorro, 2012 step through frame model, fit-
ted with 21 gears and a weight of 16 kg. A pedelec, type Batavus
Socorro Easy, 2012 step through frame model, with electrical pedal
support up to 25 km/h, a rear axis mounted motor, a battery above
the rear wheel, four power settings, 21 gears, and a weight of
27,4 kg. The pedelec’s pedal support was regulated by a torque
sensor, supplying a level of power in relation to the power sup-
plied by the cyclist and was in accordance with EU legislation
for vehicles category L1e-A (Bike Europe november, 2014). Sup-
port is given immediately, but if too little power is exerted by
the rider than pedal support will be relatively weak as well. This
specific pedelec was used in the study, since two independent con-
sumer tests reported its pedal support system being superior in
its class, highly intuitive and creating a natural cycling experience
(Consumentenbond, 2016; Fietsersbond, 2014). Further, its design
was identical to the conventional bicycle and in terms of stability
the position of motor and battery the best option available in 2014.
Of the pedelec’s four support settings – no support, low support,
normal support or high support – only normal support was used
in the experiment. On the pedelec, participants were instructed
not to change power settings or gears. On the conventional bike,
participants were allowed to change gears.
In cooperation with Delft University of Technology, both bicy-
cles were equipped with a speedometer, GPS and rotation sensor,
tri-axis accelerometer, steering angle sensor (potentiometer), and
a camera facing the cyclist (see Fig. 1). To record data, a small
laptop was placed in a case on the rear bicycle rack. On the partici-
pant’s bicycle helmet a Go Pro camera was attached, to record video
footage from the cyclist’s point of view. In the current study, only
the video footage and speedometer data were used for analyses.
For more detailed information see Vlakveld et al. (2015).
Please cite this article in press as: Twisk, D.A.M., et al., An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing middle-aged and
elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional bicycles. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
3
2.2.2. Hand grip strength and questionnaires
Prior to the cycling tasks, participants performed a hand grip
strength test. Participants were asked to squeeze a hand grip
dynamo meter twice for each hand as hard as they could for 2 s. The
average score of these four trials was used in the analyses. Other
information, for instance about body height, weight, and cycling
experience, was obtained by questionnaire.
2.3. Route and task
The experiment took place in the Dutch city of Leidschendam
in summer 2013. Participants cycled a route in real traffic and
performed several tasks on a parking lot (PL), once on the conven-
tional bicycle (C) and once on the pedelec (P). The order of bicycle
type was randomized across participants. The route had a length
of approximately 3.5 km and consisted mostly of separate bicycle
paths and roads in residential areas. See for more detail about the
route Vlakveld et al. (2015). After each trip participants carried out
four tasks in an empty outdoor parking lot, one of which was a
mounting/acceleration task. For the current study, only the data
from this mounting/acceleration task was used.
For the comparison of the information obtained at the parking
lot, also the mounting behaviour at a traffic light (TL) was analysed.
For the mounting/acceleration task in the parking lot, participants
were instructed as follows: ‘On my signal (whistle), mount and
accelerate as fast as possible to reach a speed of 17 km/h, then brake
to stand still (quickly but safely) ending with one or both feet on the
ground’. If this task was not executed according to instructions, par-
ticipants were asked to repeat the task, with a maximum of three
attempts. Only data from the last attempt were included in the anal-
yses. No instructions were given for the starting task at the traffic
light. When mounting or dismounting, participants were advised
not to use the “Cowboy” method (swing their leg over the rear rack),
because of the presence of the container holding the laptop on the
bicycle rack.
2.4. Variables
2.4.1. Stability in two task phases
To facilitate data analysis of the stability constructs, three mark-
ers were placed on the observed video footage, to mark two phases.
Phase 1, starting the moment a participant started moving in reac-
tion to the whistle or green light and ending the moment the
speedometer recorded a speed equal to 6 km/h. This phase corre-
sponds with Dubbeldam’s observation that at the speed of 5 km/hr
cyclists have completed mounting (2016). Phase 2 started after
phase 1, ending the moment in time the speedometer recorded a
speed equal to 10 km/h. This corresponds with Dubbeldam’s phase
of ‘harmonized’ cycling and ends just before the bicycle becomes
self-stabilizing at a speed of about 12 km/h (Schwab et al., 2012). In
this study ‘stability’ was defined as the time – in seconds- needed
to reach these target speeds. The longer times were taken to be
associated with lower levels of stability.
2.4.2. Task conditions
There were two task contexts: an experimental controlled con-
text in which participants were instructed to mount at the parking
lot in comparison to a natural unobtrusive mounting behaviour at
a traffic light. These mounting procedures were observed for each
participant on both bicycle types, namely a conventional bicycle
and a pedelec. This resulted in four experimental conditions. All
participants took part in each experimental condition.
2.4.3. Classification of mounting methods
From a sample of the video footage, five general mounting meth-
ods (MM) were identified that were defined by three mounting
G Model
AAP-4383; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 D.A.M. Twisk et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Mounting Methods (MM) & Associated Characteristics (MC).

Method (MM)

1. Stand Pedal 2. Sit Pedal 3. Stand Steps 4. Sit Steps 5. Cross

(A) Body Position stand sit stand sit stand
Characteristics (MC)
(B) Start pedal pedal steps steps pedal/steps
(C)Through Frame before before before before after

characteristics (MC): (A) body position, (B) start, and (C) through
frame. The cyclists’ body position was either ‘stand’ (on the ground)
or ‘sit’ (on the saddle). Then the cyclist would start to gain speed by
using the pedal or by using steps. ‘Pedal’ means that the pedal crank
is placed in a 45 degrees up from horizontal position, and the par-
ticipant gains speed by pushing the pedal down. Participants used
‘steps’ if they gained speed by pushing off from the ground (once
or several times) with the foot not placed on the pedal. Thirdly, the
cyclist would move one leg to the opposite side of the bike, through
the frame, either before or after initiating movement. Using these
three factors, we were able to uniquely label each event as one of
the five mounting methods (see Table 1).
2.5. Research questions and statistical analyses
To test the relationships of individual rider characteristics on sta-
bility in relation to bicycle type and mounting phase, a repeated
measures ANOVA was carried out with bicycle type as within sub-
ject variable, and age and gender as grouping variable. Mauchli’s
test of the spherity was not applied as this study design only
included two conditions and two groups. Corrections were applied
where necessary based on Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances.
Violations of the normality assumption were identified, but ignored
since ANOVA is generally considered a robust test in cases in which
there are about equal numbers of participants in each experimental
group (Field, 2009), as is the case in the current study.
To test the additional impact of task context, repeated measures
ANOVA were carried out with ‘context’ as an additional within sub-
ject variable, mainly to explore the presence of a main effect of
context, and the presence of additional significant interactions of
context with age group, gender, and bicycle type.
To assess the additional impact of mounting methods and char-
acteristics, hierarchical linear regressions were carried out entering
variables as predictors for stability, in the following order: 1) actual
age and gender, 2) body position, start, and through frame result-
ing in four separate analyses (mounting phase X bicycle type). Hand
grip was excluded because of its high correlation with gender and
age.
3. Results
3.1. Stability, age, gender and bicycle type
For the controlled condition, mean scores and standard devia-
tions for stability are presented in Table 2. Note that the standard
deviations in the elderly are larger than in the middle-aged group,
especially in the elderly female group. A repeated measures ANOVA
was carried out on the controlled condition with bicycle type as
a within-subjects factor, with age group and gender as between-
subjects factors, and with stability in phases 1 and 2 as the
dependent variable. The results show for phase 1 a main effect of
Bicycle type F (1,52) = 7.26, p = 0.01, eta = 0.123, of the pedelec being
significantly slower. Interactions of bicycle type by age groups, or
by gender were all not significant, suggesting no specific effects for
these groups. Further as expected there was a main effect of age,
elderly being slower than the middle aged group and males being
faster than females. Also in phase 2 the main effect of bicycle type
was significant, but now pedelecs were faster than conventional
bicycles F (1,52) = 17.00, p = 0.00. Similar to phase 1, there was a
main effect of age F (1,52) = 7.57 p = 0.008 with a lower stability
for elderly, and a main effect of gender with a lower stability for
females (F (1,52) = 10.22 p = 0.002). None of the interactions with
bicycle type were significant indicating that there were no differ-
ences in the effect of the bicycle types dependent on age or gender.
3.2. Natural conditions
To assess whether patterns in the natural condition differed
from patterns obtained from the task in the parking lot, an ANOVA
with repeated measures on bicycle type and context was carried
out, with age and gender as grouping variable. The results showed
a significant main effect of context F(1,37) = 32,29, p = 0.00 in phase
1, with lower stability at the traffic light than in the parking lot.
None of the interactions were significant. Also in phase 2, only con-
text was significant (F (1,37) = 19,624 p = 0.000, eta = 0.347) with
lower stability at the traffic light than in the parking lot. No inter-
actions were found of context with bicycle type, gender and age.
This implies that although being generally less stable in real traf-
fic, the behaviour patterns in real traffic by age group, gender and

Table 2
Mean and Standard deviations of stability by gender, age, bicycle type and mounting phase (parking lot).

Conventional Pedelec Differb

a a
Mean (sec) SD Mean (sec) SD

Middle-aged 1.58 0.22 1.88 0.47 −0.30

Female
Elderly 2.14 0.71 2.50 0.79 −0.36
Phase 1
Middle-aged 1.42 0.40 1.45 0.20 −0.03
Male
Elderly 1.72 0.46 1.91 0.56 −0.19

Middle-aged 1.26 0.29 1.11 0.65 0.15

Female
Elderly 1.83 0.79 1.27 0.96 0.56
Phase 2
Middle-aged 0.91 0.24 0.67 0.31 0.24
Male
Elderly 1.32 0.45 0.93 0.28 0.39
a
Lower values indicate a higher stability.
b
Negative values indicate a lower stability on the pedelec than on the conventional bicycle.

Please cite this article in press as: Twisk, D.A.M., et al., An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing middle-aged and
elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional bicycles. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
G Model
AAP-4383; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.A.M. Twisk et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 5

Table 3
Correlations of hand grip strength with age, gender, and stability.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1.Age 0.13 −0.44** 0.40** 0.42** 0.41** 0.43** 0.48** 0.23 0.41** 0.18
2. Gender 1 0.63** −0.07 −0.30* −0.22 −0.32* −0.19 −0.10 −0.34* −0.28*
3. Handgrip 1 −0.25 −0.41** −0.37** −0.48** −0.40** −0.15 −0.50** −0.22
4. Conventional at light Phase 1 1 0.39** 0.36* 0.40** 0.50** 0.22 0.39** 0.26
5. Conventional at light Phase 2 1 0.53** 0.61** 0.69** 0.40** 0.63** 0.45**
6. Conventional in Parking lot Phase 1 1 0.21 0.31* 0.18 0.49** 0.11
7. Conventional in Parking lot Phase 2 1 0.58** 0.19 0.52** 0.50**
8. Pedelec at light Phase 1 1 0.25 0.64** 0.25
9. Pedelec at light Phase 2 1 0.16 0.14
10. Pedelec in Parking lot Phase 1 1 0.16
11. Pedelec in Parking lot Phase 2 1

Figures in bold are not statistically significant.

*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

bicycle type did not significantly differ from those in the parking
lot.
3.3. The association of hand grip strength with age, gender, and
stability
To assess the impact of hand grip strength, Table 3 presents
the zero-order correlations of the predictors age, gender and hand-
grip with the dependent variable stability (variables 6 through 11).
Note that handgrip strength is highly correlated with age and gen-
der. Furthermore, hand grip strength has an inverse relationship
with stability, suggesting that the stronger participants are, the
higher their balance is. Irrespective of context, for pedelecs, muscle
strength loses its impact in phase 2. This provides further support
for the hypothesis that for participants with low muscle strength,
pedelecs may be beneficial, but only in the second phase of mount-
ing (i.e. that pedelecs may be worse for them in the first phase, as
discussed in Section 4 below).
3.4. Additional impact of mounting methods
Table 4 presents an overview of the percentage of participants
within each age and gender group for the five mounting method
and the three mounting characteristics. The results confirm ear-
lier findings showing mounting methods and characteristics to be
confounded with age and gender. Note further that elderly males
are more similar to middle-aged males than elderly females are to
middle-aged females. In fact, middle-aged females are more sim-
ilar to middle-aged man, than to elderly females. Elderly women
stand out. Only members of this group uses the cross style, and, a
relatively high proportion of them (46%) do so.
Table 5 shows mounting behaviour not to differ between bicycle
types, since similarity is high >60%. However, since similarity did
not reach 100 percent, this means that our analysis of differences
as a result of bike type may in part be confounded by differences in
chosen mounting method.
As shown in previous analyses, also mounting methods and
characteristics were confounded with age and gender. Further,
ANOVAs showed main effects for age and gender on accelera-
tion in both phases. To assess the additional impact of mounting
method on acceleration, a hierarchical regression was carried out
with age, gender and three mounting characteristics as predictors −
all with two categories. To avoid collinearity, muscle strength was
not entered in these analyses. Stability in phases I and 2 were the
dependent variables. The analyses were further carried out sepa-
rately for the two bicycle types. Age and gender were entered first,
followed by the three mounting characteristics. All correlations
between the predictors were below 0.80. As shown in Table 6 the
variance inflated factor (VIF) was below 10 (see also Field, p. 224),
average VIF were not substantially greater than 1, and tolerance
was above 0.1.
The Durbin-Watson statistic showed that the assumption of
independent errors is tenable, that it is not less than 1 and not
greater than 3, with the best being close to 2. The explained variance
(adjusted R 2 ) varies by bicycle type and mounting phase, being
the highest for the conventional bicycle phase 2 (0.51), meaning
that 51% of the variance in ‘stability’ is shared with the four pre-
dictors, and the lowest for the pedelec phase 2 for which it almost
does not matter who mounted it and in what manner. Also, the
Standardized Beta of mounting characteristics shows an almost
inverse relationship with bicycle type and mounting phase. Mount-
ing characteristics have almost no relationship with stability for a
conventional bicycle in phase 1 and for a pedelec in phase 2. Con-
versely, mounting characteristics matter for conventional bicycles
but only in phase 2, but for pedelecs only in phase 1. In phase 1 the
stability of pedelecs is higher when the bicycle is used by a younger

Table 4
Percentage of mounting method and characteristics on conventional bicycle in controlled conditions.

Middle-aged Elderly

Female Male Female Male

Method% 1.Stand pedal 52.9 9.1 23.1 13.3

2.Sit pedal 29.4 90.9 7.7 80.0
3.Stand steps 17.6 23.1 6.7
4. Sit steps 46.2
5. Cross

Stand 70.6 9.1 92.3 20

Body Position
Sit 33.3 90.9 7.7 80
Pedal 82.4 100 38.5 93
Characteristics % Start
Steps 17.6 61.5 6.7
Before 100 100 53.8 100
Through Frame
After 46.2

Please cite this article in press as: Twisk, D.A.M., et al., An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing middle-aged and
elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional bicycles. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
G Model
AAP-4383; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 D.A.M. Twisk et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Table 5
Correspondence in mounting methods in percentages between pedelec and conventional bicycle in controlled conditions.

Pedelec

Stand Pedal Sit Pedal Stand Steps Sit Steps Cross

Stand Pedal 60.0 13.3 13.3 0.0 13.3

Sit Pedal 7.1 85.7 3.6 3.6 0.0
Conventional Stand Steps 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 0.0
Sit Steps 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cross 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.3

person, and in terms of mounting characteristic if a person is seated,
uses the pedal to push off, or has moved through the frame after
the start of the mounting maneuver.
4. Discussion
The study addressed factors affecting the mounting stability
of pedelecs in comparison to conventional bicycles for four user
groups: elderly versus middle-aged cyclists, and males versus
females. Based on previous studies (Dubbeldam et al., 2016;
Kooijman et al., 2011; Straathof, 2014), two phases were identi-
fied in the mounting manoeuvre. Phase 1 involving the transference
from ground support to balance, which starts at the first movement
until a speed of 6 km/h has been reached. Phase 2 involving the
transition from balance to harmonized cycling, which is the period
between 6 km/h and 10 km/h. It is assumed the longer these phases
last, the lower the stability is. At speeds higher than 10 km/h, the
bicycle becomes self-stabilising, requiring little rider effort to keep
balance (Schwab et al., 2012), and the mounting manoeuvres have
been completed (Dubbeldam et al., 2016). None of these previous
studies however have compared mounting method and stability
on pedelecs with those on conventional bicycles, nor studied these
factors in natural traffic conditions
The present study showed the pedelec to be less stable in phase 1
than the conventional bicycle. This was the case for both age groups
and for males and females alike. In phase 2, however, the pedelec
had a better stability than the conventional bicycle, again irrespec-
tive of rider age or gender. The comparison with stability in real
traffic conditions showed that speeds were generally lower in real
traffic than in controlled conditions. In the latter, cyclists were stim-
ulated to go as fast as they could, while in the former they could
set their own pace. Still, the general patterns as observed in the
controlled conditions were still present in real traffic: Thus a lower
stability on pedelecs in phase 1 and higher stability in phase 2. This
indicates that the results obtained in the controlled conditions may
be generalized to real traffic situations. Note that, these negative
effects on stability for pedelecs in phase 1 may even be greater in
real traffic when cyclists are not pushed to go as fast as they can.
As hypothesized muscle strength was shown to play a role in
stability. On a conventional bicycle, low muscle strength was asso-
ciated with lower stability. This shortcoming was more or less
eliminated when a pedelec was used, but again only in phase 2.
In phase 1, stability on a pedelec was even lower for persons with
low muscle strength; thus increasing fall risk for this user group
rather than decreasing it.
The questions of whether mounting characteristics differed
by bicycle type and whether specific characteristics were more
beneficial than others for balance, first of all showed that the
use of mounting methods was confounded with age and gender.
Specifically, elderly women differed from the other groups. Their
mounting method – using the outside foot to push down the near-
est pedal, and to accelerate by pushing form the ground – was rarely
used in any of the other user groups. As suggested by Dubbeldam
et al. (2016), physical characteristics related to age and gender may
result in specific mounting techniques to be preferred over others.
In addition to these earlier mounting studies (Dubbeldam et al.,
2016; Straathof, 2014), the present study found that participants
used almost identical methods whether mounting a pedelec or a
conventional bicycle. Thus personal habits rather than bicycle type
may determine their use. Since the pedelec’s pedal support system
responds to the force exerted on the pedals, mounting strategies
that succeed in creating a strong force are advantageous for sta-
bility overcoming the disadvantages of the bicycle’s higher weight.
This may also explain why persons with high muscle strength have
an advantage and also mounting strategies that exert force by using
one’s body weight – e.g. pushing the pedal down by standing on it

Table 6
The additional effect of mounting characteristic (excluding hand grip strength).

Criterion Statistically significant Predictorsa Adjusted R2 Durbin-Watson Standardized Beta Tolerance VIF

Total 0.21 1.97

Conventional phase 1 Age 0.44 0.98 1.02
Gender (female = 1, male = 2) −0.28 0.98 1.02

Total 0.51 2.16

Age 0.29 0.84 1.19
Conventional phase 2 Gender (female = 1, male = 2) n.s.
Body position (stand = 1, sit = 2) −0.32 0.50 2.0
Start (pedal = 1, steps = 2) 0.39 0.64 1.6

Total 0.46 1.89

Age 0.43 0.88 1.14
Gender (female = 1, male = 2) n.s.
Pedelec phase 1
Body position (stand = 1, sit = 2) −0.24 0.46 2.15
Start (pedal = 1, steps = 2) 0.37 0.70 1.43
Through frame (1 = after, 2 = before) 0.25 0.75 1.33

Total 0.08 1.50

Pedelec phase 2 Gender (female = 1, male = 2) −0.37 0.84 1.19
Start (pedal = 1, steps = 2) n.s. 0.84 1.19
a
Predictors entered in the model were in the order: age, gender, body position, start, and through frame. Only statistically significant predictors and Beta’s (p > 0.05) are
presented.

Please cite this article in press as: Twisk, D.A.M., et al., An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing middle-aged and
elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional bicycles. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
G Model
AAP-4383; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.A.M. Twisk et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
with one’s full weight, while it is in its top position and moving
through the frame after mounting – have a better balance in phase
1 on a pedelec. These strategies make better use of the characteris-
tics of the pedelec. The fact that participants used the same strategy
further suggests that mounting is habitual behaviour, coming from
hours of deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 2007), and resulting in
automatic routines, not requiring any attention and being suscepti-
ble to errors (Shriffrin and Schneider, 1977). Once automated such
routines can only be modified with great effort (Rasmussen, 1985).
4.1. Implications of the study
To reap the benefits from pedelecs and to reduce the risk of
falling, the study has provided some deeper understanding of the
interaction of different user groups with this technically advanced
bicycle type. Further study is needed to test the generalisability
of the findings. Still even at this stage of development, the results
of the present study have implications for the design of pedelecs,
the lay-out of areas where cyclists frequently mount or dismount,
the training of bicycle competencies, and for the tests of the man-
machine interphase.
For pedelec design the most important finding is that of poor
balance in the first phase of mounting, up to a speed of 6 km/h. This
calls for developing pedelecs that are at least equally easy to mount
as conventional bicycles, or even better that provide support in such
a manner that it improves balance in the first stage of mounting,
especially that of elderly and cyclists with low muscle strength. The
‘Sophie’ bicycle (Dubbeldam et al., In press) (see) is a first attempt
towards the development of such a pedelec.
For infrastructure, the findings provide input for guidelines con-
cerning locations where cyclists frequently mount and dismount,
such as at intersections and crossings. The instability in the different
phases of mounting – irrespective of bicycle types – demands suffi-
cient path width and a level surface free of obstacles. The observed
differences in user groups and bicycle types are relevant for use
in design tools such as micro-simulations models (Morsink et al.,
2016). The incorporation of this information in such design tools
ensures that future road designs are accommodating the needs
of the growing population of elderly bicyclists and the increasing
popularity of pedelecs.
For training, the results of this study suggest that some mount-
ing characteristics are more beneficial for stability than others, and
that cyclists do not modify their mounting method depending on
the type of bicycle. Note though that due to technical limitations,
the conclusions on mounting methods of elderly male cyclists may
be the least valid in this study, since the ‘cowboy’ mounting method
could not be used, and is therefore absent in this study. Straathof
(2014) however observed that 15% of participants used the cow-
boy method, all of whom where elderly men. The differences in
mounting characteristics need further exploration, for instance by
analysing mounting techniques in Naturalistic cycling studies. If
future studies confirm that ‘mounting method’ is a habit rather than
a routine that can easily modified, then it needs to be considered to
train routines to young cyclists that are beneficial for a life time and
that are safe in a wide range of conditions. However, if mounting
characteristics are easily modified at any age, then training might
be used to assist cyclists in using the most optimal mounting tech-
niques for different bicycle types, such as using the pedal when
mounting a pedelec.
For usability testing, our method is one of the first to evaluate
the rider – cyclist performance for different task conditions, bicycle
types and user groups. Note though that the definition of ‘stability’
originated from previous studies about rider and vehicle character-
istics (Dubbeldam et al., 2016; Kooijman et al., 2011; Schwab et al.,
2012), but only used bicycle speed as an indicator of stability. Fur-
ther research should validate whether this is a sufficiently sensitive
Please cite this article in press as: Twisk, D.A.M., et al., An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing middle-aged and
elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional bicycles. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
7
indicator, or that it should be supplemented by indicators such as
steering angle and steering reversal rates. Further, task conditions
should be elaborated upon to include dismounting and other safety
critical conditions. In-depth accident analyses should be used to
identify these safety critical situations (Boele et al., in press). At
present, the range of testing conditions will be severely restricted
for ethical reasons, since in all these conditions cyclists need to be
protected against injuries due to actual falls and collisions. So far,
such safe testing conditions – similar to driving simulators – are
not yet available for cycling.
5. Conclusion
Pedelecs were shown to be less stable in the early stage of
mounting (phase 1) than conventional bicycles, irrespective of
user group. For all user groups, only in phase 2 the advantages of
electrical support kicked in. Results obtained in traffic conditions
confirmed that the patterns observed in the controlled setting also
held for both mounting phases and bicycle types, with the only dif-
ference being a lower observed speed in traffic conditions. Also,
measures of physical limitations due to low muscle strength were
shown only to be compensated for by pedal support in phase 2
and not in phase 1. Mounting characteristics affected pedelec sta-
bility in phase 1. Higher stability was associated with a) starting
while seated and b) using the pedal to push off. No such benefits
were observed for phase 2. Although these mounting characteris-
tics were confounded with age, gender, and muscle strength, the
pattern of results still suggest certain mounting techniques to be
more beneficial for pedelecs. These results further illustrate the
importance of a deeper understanding of the interactions of bicycle
types and user groups on critical manoeuvres and their potential
contribution to the optimisation of pedelec design and the training
strategies for safe mounting techniques.
Acknowledgements
This study was facilitated by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastruc-
ture and Environment. The authors would like to thank Dr. Arend
Schwab from Delft University of Technology for designing and
building the instrumented bicycles.
References
Bike Europe. november, 2014. All you need to know on. . . EU regulations for:
e-bikes pedelecs and speedpedelecs. Retrieved 19-10-2016, 2016, from http://
www.raivereniging.nl/ecm/?id=workspace://SpacesStore/4ee4a9c0-3b5a-
48f7-9346-ce670f4a0e43.
Boele, M., van Duijvenvoorde, K., Doumen, M.J.A., Louwerse, R., Duivenvoorden,
C.W.A.E., Davidse, R., in press. Crashes involving cyclists aged 50 and over in
the Netherlands: An in-depth study. Accident Analysis & Prevention: Special
Issue Cycling Safety.
Brouwer, W.H., Davidse, R.J., 2002. Oudere verkeersdeelnemers. In: Schroots, J.J.F.
(Ed.), Handboek psychologie van de volwassen ontwikkeling en veroudering.
Van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 505–531.
Bulsink, V.E., Kiewiet, H., van de Belt, D., Maarten, B., Bart, K., in press. Cycling
strategies of young and older cyclists. Human Movement Science.
Consumentenbond, 2016. Consumer Test Batavus Socorro Consumentenbond,
Retrieved 19/10, 2016.
Dubbeldam, R., Baten, C.T.M., Straathof, P.T.C., Buurke, J.H., Rietman, J.S., 2016. The
different ways to get on and off a bicycle for young and old. Saf. Sci. Spec. Issue
Artic.: Cycl. Saf.
Dubbeldam, R., Baten, C., Buurke, J.H., Rietman, J.S., in press. SOFIE, a bicycle that
supports older cyclists? Accident Analysis and Prevention SI:Cycling Safety.
Ericsson, A.K., Prietula, M.J., Cokely, E.T., 2007. The Making of an Expert. Harvard
Business Review Article, July.
Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed. Sage publications Ltd,
London, UK.
Fietsersbond, 2014 12-08-2014. Batavus soccoro easy. Retrieved 19- 10-2016.
Franke-Bartholdt, L., Petzoldt, T., Schwanitz, S., Kühn, M., Gehlert, T., 2014. Pedelec
Naturalistic Cycling Study, GDV. CDV.
Hendriksen, I., Engbers, L., Schrijver, J., Gijlswijk, R.v., Weltevreden, J.B., Wilting,
J.B., 2008. Elektrisch Fietsen: Marktonderzoek en verkenning
toekomstmogelijkheden. TNO Kwaliteit van leven, Leiden.
G Model
AAP-4383; No. of Pages 8 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 D.A.M. Twisk et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Hoeymans, N., Van Loon, A.J.M., van den Berg, M., Harbers, M.M., Hilderink, H.B.M.,
van Oers, J.A.M., Schoemaker, C.G., 2014. Een gezonder Nederland.
Kernboodschappen van de Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning 2014.
Rijksinstituut voor Volkdsgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven.
Kooijman, J.D.G., Meijaard, J.P., Papadopoulos, J.M., Ruina, A., Schwab, A.L., 2011. A
bicycle can be self-stable without gyroscopic or caster effects, paper and
supporting material. Science 332 (6027), 339–342 http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/
stablebicycle/.
Kruijer, H., den Hertog, P., Klein Wolt, K., Panneman, M., Sprik, E., 2012.
Fietsongevallen in Nederland: een LIS vervolgonderzoek naar ongevallen met
gewone en elektrische fietsen. VeiligheidNL, Amsterdam.
Meijaard, J.P., Papadopoulos, J.M., Ruina, A., Schwab, A.L., 2007. Linearized
dynamics equations for the balance and steer of a bicycle: a benchmark and
review. Proc. R. Soc. A 463, 1955–1982.
Morsink, P., Toes, E., van Overdijk, R., Dijkstra, A., 2016. Fietsmodellering: lopende
ontwikkelingen en toekomstige vragen (modeling bicycle characteristics: new
developments and future issues). Paper Presented at the Nationaal
Verkeerskundecongres.
Ormel, W., Klein Wolt, K., den Hertog, P., 2008. Enkelvoudige fietsongevallen: Een
LIS-vervolgonderzoek Stichting Consument en Veiligheid Amsterdam.
Rasmussen, J., 1985. Trends in human reliability analysis. Ergonomics 28 (8),
1185–1195.
Rolfsman, E., Bylund, P.O., Saveman, B.I., 2012. Single injury incidents among
pedestrians and biscyclists in Northern Sweden: safety and preventive issues.
Saf. Sci. Monit. 16 (1).
Schaap, L.A., Koster, A., Visser, M., 2013. Adiposity, muscle mass, and muscle
strength in relation to functional decline in older persons. Epidemiol. Rev. 35
(1), 51–65.
Please cite this article in press as: Twisk, D.A.M., et al., An experiment on rider stability while mounting: Comparing middle-aged and
elderly cyclists on pedelecs and conventional bicycles. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.004
Schepers, J.P., Fishman, E., den Hertog, P., Klein Wolt, K., Schwab, A.L., 2014. The
safety of electrically assisted bicycles compared to classic bicycles. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 73 (0), 174–180.
Schwab, A.L., Meijaard, J.P., Kooijman, J.D.G., 2012. Lateral dynamics of a bicycle
with a passive rider model: stability and controllability. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 50, 8.
Shriffrin, R.M., Schneider, W., 1977. Controlled and automatic information
processing II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.
Psychol. Rev. 84 (127), 127–190.
Stel, V.S., Smit, J.H., Pluijm, S.M.F., Lips, P., 2003. Balance and mobility performance
as treatable risk factors for recurrent falling in older persons. J. Clin. Epidemiol.
56 (7), 659–668.
Straathof, P., 2014. Step by Step Analysis of Bicycle Mounting and Dismounting:
Strategies and Kinematics: Investigating the Differences in Bicycle Mounting
and Dismounting Strategies and Kinematics Between Young and Old Cyclists.
http://essay.utwente.nl/65966/.
Twisk, D.A.M., Davidse, R.J., Schepers, P., 2015. Challenges in reducing bicycle
casualties with high volume cycle use: lessons from The Netherlands. In:
Gerike, R., Parkin, J. (Eds.), Cycling Futures: From Research into Practice
Ashgate.
Van Boggelen, O., Van Oijen, J., Lankhuijzen, R., 2013. Feiten Over de Elektrische
Fiets. Fietsberaad, Utrecht.
Vlakveld, W.P., Twisk, D., Christoph, M., Boele, M., Sikkema, R., Remy, R., et al., 2015.
Speed choice and mental workload of elderly cyclists on e-bikes in simple and
complex traffic situations: a field experiment. Accid. Anal. Prev. 74 (0), 97–106.
Weijermars, W., Bos, N., Stipdonk, H.L., 2015. Serious road injuries in the
Netherlands dissected. Traffic Inj. Prev. 17 (1), 73–79.
Weijermars, W., Bos, N., Stipdonk, H.L., 2016. Health burden of serious road
injuries in the Netherlands. Traffic Inj. Prev. 17 (8), 863–869.