Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

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

Aberrant behaviours in relation to the self-reported crashes of

bicyclists in China: Development of the Chinese Cycling
Behaviour Questionnaire
Cheng Wang a, Weihua Zhang b, Zhongxiang Feng b,⇑, N.N. Sze c, Jin Xu d, Xuxin Zhang e,
Kun Wang a, Wenjuan Huang b, Yi Luo f
a
School of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, Anhui, PR China
b
School of Automobile and Traffic Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, Anhui, PR China
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
d
College of Traffic and Transportation, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, PR China
e
School of Transportation Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, PR China
f
Traffic Management Research Institute of the Ministry of Public Security, Wuxi 214000, Jiangsu, PR China

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

Article history: The current study developed the Chinese Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire (CCBQ) to mea-
Received 16 July 2018 sure the behaviours of Chinese bicyclists, investigated the factorial structure of aberrant
Received in revised form 27 June 2019 cycling behaviour, and assessed which types of behaviour were related to bicyclists’
Accepted 25 August 2019
self-reported crashes. The questionnaire-based investigation was conducted among 547
Available online 3 September 2019
bicyclists in Hefei, China, and 25 items were ultimately found to have good reliability
and validity. Factor analysis showed that the data best fit the four-factor solution, which
Keywords:
explained 47.28% of the total variance. The factors were named rule and aggressive viola-
Bicyclists
Chinese Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire
tions, ordinary violations, personal control errors and distractions. On average, male bicyclists
Violations reported higher rates of rule and aggressive violations, ordinary violations and distractions
Errors than females, and young bicyclists were more prone to these aberrant behaviours than
Crashes older bicyclists. The results of multiple regression analysis indicated that rule and
aggressive violations, ordinary violations and distractions were related to self-reported
crashes. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to investigating which
countermeasures may effectively reduce the crash involvement of bicyclists.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Bicyclists represent a vulnerable group on roads (World Health Organization (WHO), 2015). From 2006 to 2015, almost
22,900 bicyclist fatalities occurred in Europe as a result of traffic crashes (European Road Safety Observatory, 2017). Approx-
imately 3.8 million non-fatal bicycle injuries and 9800 deaths were reported during 1997–2013 in the USA (Gaither et al.,
2017). Statistics provided by the Shenzhen1 Traffic Police illustrated that approximately 130,000 cases of bicycle-related

⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Automobile and Traffic Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, 193 Tunxi Road, Baohe District, Hefei 230009,
Anhui Province, China.
E-mail address: fzx@hfut.edu.cn (Z. Feng).
1
Shenzhen is located in the south of China. By the end of 2017, Shenzhen had a permanent resident population of 125,283 million, and the total length of
bicycle lanes in Shenzhen is approximately 1,156 km. Approximately 890,000 shared bicycles are present in Shenzhen. According to the Shenzhen Traffic Police,
approximately 130,000 cases of shared bicycle violations have occurred since 2017.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.022
1369-8478/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
64 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75

violations have occurred since 2017. Additionally, the number of bicycle-related crashes in the first half of 2017 was 79.63%
higher than the number during the same period in the previous year (Pan & Jiang, 2019; Zhou, 2017).
To reduce these casualty rates, understanding how bicycle crashes occur is important. Extensive research has indicated
that human factors, especially the behaviour of road users, are crucial factors in most traffic crashes (e.g., Elander, West, &
French, 1993; Elliott, Baughan, & Sexton, 2007; Parker, Reason, Manstead, & Stradling, 1995; Xie & Parker, 2002), and bicycle
crashes are no exception (Hezaveh, Zavareh, Cherry, & Nordfjærn, 2018; Useche, Montoro, Alonso, & Oviedo-Trespalacios,
2018). Approximately 40% of the crashes of bicyclists were preceded by risky cycling behaviours, especially traffic violations
or distracted cycling (Martí-Belda, Bosó, Lijarcio, & López, 2016).
Understanding how such behaviours are related to crash involvement is necessary because behaviour is potentially
amenable to change via road safety interventions. The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and its adapted versions are
effective instruments for evaluating and measuring the behaviours of road users (e.g., Gras et al., 2006; Lajunen, Parker, &
Summala, 2004; Parker et al., 1995; Xie & Parker, 2002; Steg & Brussel, 2009).

1.1. Previous research on behaviour questionnaires

Self-reported instruments have been developed to measure driving behaviour. Since Reason’s team developed the original
DBQ in 1990 (Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Baxter, & Campbell, 1990), many advances regarding aberrant driving behaviour
have been achieved (e.g., Gras et al., 2006; Lajunen et al., 2004; Parker et al., 1995; Xie & Parker, 2002), but the findings have
mostly concerned four-wheeled vehicle drivers.
Since 2007, researchers have developed behaviour questionnaires for motorcycle riders and electric bike riders based on
the DBQ, which has been applied and popularized in other countries. The Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire (MRBQ)
was developed to measure motorcyclists’ errors and violations, as well as the use of motorcycle safety equipment (Elliott
et al., 2007). The validity and reliability of the MRBQ have been examined in motorcycle populations in the United Kingdom
(Elliott et al., 2007), China (Cheng & Ng, 2010), Iran (Motevalian, Asadilari, Rahimi, & Eftekhar, 2011), Turkey (Özkan, Lajunen,
Doğruyol, Yıldırım, & Çoymak, 2012), and Australia (Sakashita et al., 2014; Stephens et al., 2017). Steg and Brussel (2009)
developed the MRQ on the basis of the Dutch DBQ (Verschuur, 2003), and Yao and Wu (2012) constructed a new instrument
to measure the aberrant riding behaviours of e-bike riders. Detailed descriptions of the derived questionnaires are shown in
Table 1.

1.2. Existing behaviour questionnaires for bicyclists and the relationship between behaviour dimensions and self-reported crashes

Feenstra, Ruiter, Schepers, Peters, and Kok (2011) developed the Adolescent Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire (ACBQ) to
measure the dangerous cycling behaviour of adolescents. Hezaveh et al. (2018) further developed the Bicycle Rider
Behaviour Questionnaire (BRBQ) for bicyclists, which assesses five dimensions. Their results showed that ‘‘traffic violations”,
‘‘stunts and distractions”, and ‘‘signalling violations” were the contributors to at-fault, self-reported multi-vehicle crashes.
‘‘Traffic violations”, ‘‘control errors”, and ‘‘notice failures” were related to all self-reported multi-vehicle crashes. Useche,
Montoro, Tomas, and Cendales (2018) designed the Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire (CBQ), which covers both risky and
positive behaviours, and a three-dimensional structure was determined. Furthermore, Useche, Montoro, Alonso, and
Oviedo-Trespalacios (2018) found that self-reported bicycle crashes can be explained through variables such as age, cycling
intensity, and risky behaviours. The detailed information is presented in Table 1.
The existing questionnaires for bicyclists (the ACBQ, CBQ, and BRBQ) have similarities and differences that are illustrated
in terms of the following aspects.

a. General summarization. Three questionnaires are derivatives of the DBQ and are reliable psychological instruments
for measuring the behaviours of bicyclists. Based on the theoretical classification of human error, risky behaviours
are divided into intentional violations and unintentional errors.
b. Cultural differences. The samples for the ACBQ were Dutch adolescents aged 13–18 years. However, the samples for
the BRBQ included professional and semi-professional bicyclists in Iran. The samples for the CBQ were Spanish-
speaking bicyclists from 20 different countries in Latin America, Europe and North America. Road culture varies among
countries or geographical zones with differences in road safety education, traffic habits, normative parameters regard-
ing traffic signals, legislation and regulations for bicyclists, and the use of helmets (Alonso, Esteban, Useche, & Manso,
2016; Constant, Messiah, Felonneau, & Lagarde, 2012; Lang, 2010; Useche, Montoro, Tomas, & Cendales, 2018).
c. Items. All three questionnaires contained similar items related to violations (e.g., running red lights, distraction) and
errors (e.g., sudden braking, failure to notice other vehicles or pedestrians). Compared with the other two question-
naires, the BRBQ addresses more emotional violations, attempted wheelies, and items for cycling in mountainous
areas. Competitive cycling appears in the BRBQ (e.g., ‘‘become involved in unofficial races with other riders or drivers”)
and CBQ (e.g., ‘‘have a dispute at speed or race with another bicyclist or driver”), while the ACBQ does not address
similar items. In addition, the BRBQ and ACBQ include negative and unsafe behaviours, but the CBQ includes a sup-
plementary factor for measuring positive behaviours that may help prevent the occurrence of traffic crashes.
Table 1
Descriptions of derived questionnaires from published studies.

No. Authors Year Questionnaire (numbers of items) Sample characteristics Factors

size % mean age mean level of target location
male experience population
1 Elliott et al. 2007 Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire 8,666 92 43 11 years motorcyclists UK traffic errors
(MRBQ) (43 items) control errors
speed
violations
performance
of stunts
use of safety
equipment
2 Steg and Brussel 2009 Moped Rider Behaviour Questionnaire (MRQ) 146 40 17.3 18 months young moped Netherlands errors
(43 items) riders lapses

C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75

violations
3 Cheng and Ng 2010 Chinese Motorcycle Rider Driving Violation 920 97.8 31.36 7.99 years Chinese Hong Kong aggressive
(CMRDV) Questionnaire (19 items) motorcycle violations
riders ordinary
violations
4 Feenstra et al. 2011 Adolescent Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire 1,749 47.4 15.0 – adolescents Netherlands errors
(ACBQ) (22 items) common
violations
exceptional
violations
5 Motevalian et al. 2011 Motorcycle Rider Behavior Questionnaire 518 100 32.5 9.3 years motorcyclists Tehran, Iran speed
(MRBQ) (48 items) violations
traffic errors
safety
violations
traffic
violations
stunts
control errors
6 Yao and Wu 2012 Aberrant Riding Behaviour Questionnaire (37 603 65 majority were 4.7 years e-bike riders Beijing and errors
items) young / middle- Hangzhou, China impulsive
aged behaviour
aggressive
behaviour
rule violation
pushing
limits/stunts
7 Özkan et al. 2012 Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire 451 100 33.94 the mean number of riders of Turkey speed
(MRBQ) (43 items) kilometres mopeds violations
travelled (last year) traffic errors
is 8960.71 km safety
equipment
stunts
control errors

(continued on next page)

65
Table 1 (continued)

66
No. Authors Year Questionnaire (numbers of items) Sample characteristics Factors
size % mean age mean level of target location
male experience population
8 Sakashita et al. 2014 Motorcycle Rider Behavior Questionnaire 1,305 79.2 36 1 year or less novice riders Victoria, Australia errors
(MRBQ) (43 items) speed
violations
stunts
protective
gear
9 Stephens et al. 2017 A modified version of 470 89 43.72 47% of the sample motorcyclists New South Wales, traffic errors
the original MRBQ (29 items) have 11+ years Australia speed
of riding experience, violations
and 29% protective
have 3–10 years of gear
riding experience control errors

C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75

stunts
10 Hezaveh et al. 2018 Bicycle Rider Behaviour 306 76 33.1 10.20 years bicyclists Iran traffic
Questionnaire (BRBQ) (34 items) violations
stunts and
distractions
notice
failures
control errors
signalling
violations
11 Useche, Montoro, 2018 Cycling Behaviour 1,064 61.2 32.83 – bicyclists Latin America, violations
Tomas, & Cendales Questionnaire (CBQ) (29 items) Europe, North errors
America positive
behaviours
 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75 67

1.3. Research necessity and objectives

Research targeting bicyclists has mainly originated from different countries in Europe, South America, North America and
the Middle East. No published study has examined the applicability of behaviour questionnaires to bicyclists in China. Demo-
graphic as well as social, economic, cultural, regulatory, and traffic environment differences have been identified as factors
related to the various DBQ dimensions, and the relationships between behaviours and crashes have been investigated in pre-
vious studies (Bener, Ozkan, & Lajunen, 2008; Blockey & Hartley, 1995; Cheng & Ng, 2010; De Winter & Dodou, 2010; Lajunen
et al., 2004; Xie & Parker, 2002). Therefore, a locally developed questionnaire is needed to assess the behaviours of bicyclists
in China.
In the traffic system, bicyclists represent a vulnerable group. Thus, to formulate effective policies to reduce risks for bicy-
clists and avoid crashes, the factors associated with crash involvement must be understood.
Therefore, the purpose of this research is as follows: (1) to develop the Chinese Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire (CCBQ)
based on the characteristics of the Chinese traffic environment and the behaviours of bicyclists, and then to identify the most
appropriate dimensional structure of the CCBQ; and (2) to examine which factors are associated with aberrant behaviours
and to investigate the associations between resulting CCBQ dimensions and bicyclists’ self-reported crash involvement.

2. Materials and methods

For this study, the CCBQ was developed to measure aberrant behaviour among bicyclists in China. Data from 547 bicy-
clists in Hefei participating in a field investigation were analysed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) approaches. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the relationships between
behaviour dimensions and self-reported crashes. A schematic overview of the method is shown in Fig. 1.

2.1. Development of the items in the Chinese Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire (CCBQ)

The questionnaire was designed by using the DBQ and the MRBQ as references, combining the characteristics of bicycles
(light weight, small size and two-wheel instability), and observing/interviewing bicyclists. The Chinese road traffic environ-
ment as well as associated rules were considered.

Synthesis of existing
questionnaires
Development
of the CCBQ Expert workshops

Piloting

Demographic
information

Questionnaire Cycling habits

information
Crashes

Subjective rule
knowledge

Sampling
A field investigation
procedure

Exploratory factor
analysis

Statistical Confirmatory factor

analyses analysis
Multiple linear
regression analysis

Fig. 1. A brief overview of the method.

68 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75

(a) Synthesis of existing questionnaires. First, we consulted the portions of the ‘‘Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s
Republic of China” and the ‘‘Regulations on the Implementation of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic
of China” that referred to bicycles. Accordingly, we summarized the violations and prohibitions of bicyclists and listed
them in the form of items (e.g., cycling drunk). Second, after observing and interviewing bicyclists, some phenomena
(e.g., distraction, stunts, and not yielding to other road users) were added. Third, some items were produced by adapt-
ing items from the DBQ and MRBQ and by incorporating new behavioural items specific to bicyclists. Items related to
aggressive behaviour stemmed from the DBQ. In terms of errors, items were selected from the DBQ and the MRBQ.
Some behaviours specific to two-wheelers, such as ‘‘failing to maintain balance”, were also included. The initial scale
consisted of 43 items.
(b) Expert workshop. We invited experts from the Institute of Transportation and Safety of Hefei University of Technology
as well as post-graduate students and PhD candidates on our academic team to evaluate the content, clarity, and clas-
sification adequacy of the questionnaire. Their opinions on the following topics were discussed: whether the items
were appropriate for our research and why or why not, items that should be deleted, items that should be revised
to improve clarity and additional behaviours that should be covered by the scale. Several rounds of discussion and
revision to the initial questionnaire were conducted following the workshops.
(c) Piloting. The questionnaire was then distributed to 80 bicyclists who rode bicycles more than 3 times a week in the
past month. They all had a good understanding of the items and the mode of answering the questionnaire. Factor anal-
ysis, similar to the analysis presented in the Results section, was conducted on the pilot survey responses. Notably,
several items were excluded because they did not load on to any of the factors that emerged from the data. The ques-
tionnaire that was used in the main investigation consisted of 36 items.
2.2. Questionnaires

The questionnaire included questions regarding demographics, cycling habits, the occurrence of crashes in the last three
years, behaviours, and subjective rule-knowledge.
The first part of the questionnaire addressed demographic information (gender, age, educational background, and marital
status) and cycling habits (cycling experience, cycling frequency, the purpose of cycling and the duration of the average trip).
Respondents were asked to report the number and types of crashes involving at least two road users, e.g., ‘‘how many crashes
with a pedestrian have you suffered when cycling in the last 3 years”, ‘‘how many crashes with a non-motor vehicle have you
suffered when cycling in the last 3 years”, and ‘‘how many crashes with a motor vehicle have you suffered when cycling in
the last 3 years”. They reported the number of incidents (0, 1, 2, 3 or more) in blank spaces. We explained to the respondents
that they should recall multiple-road user collision events resulting in any damage to the bicycle or an injury to the rider or
any other road users. We also illustrated crash experiences, including situations in which the respondents or other road users
fell down/sustained damage/suffered minor injury/suffered severe injury/suffered fatality, regardless of whether the safety
outcome was serious or minor. They all clearly understood the meaning of a crash.
The second part of the questionnaire was the behavioural instrument. As mentioned above, a 36-CCBQ item scale was
used. Each item described a specific behaviour that could be committed by a bicyclist. Consistent with previous research,
respondents were asked to indicate how often they committed the behaviours on a 5-point frequency-based response scale
ranging from ‘‘never” (which was scored as 1) to ‘‘almost always” (which was scored as 5).
The third part of the questionnaire was a survey regarding subjective rule-knowledge, which included 13 questions about
rules related to cycling. Consistent with previous research, responses were measured by presenting rules and asking respon-
dents whether they knew this information before participating in the investigation (Huemer, 2018; Huemer, Buttersack,
Laubersheimer, & Führer, 2015; Johnson, Oxley, Newstead, & Charlton, 2014). Specific questions included ‘‘did you know
before the investigation that you are not allowed to take your hands off your handlebars or hold anything in your hands
while cycling”, ‘‘did you know before the investigation that you are not allowed to engage in drunk cycling”, and ‘‘did
you know before the investigation that you are permitted to cycle on the road when you are over 12 years old”. The response
categories for the questions were: ‘‘yes, I knew” and ‘‘no, I did not know”.

2.3. Sampling procedure

The survey was conducted from January to February 2018 in Hefei2. Data were collected from a field investigation via self-
reports and by face-to-face recruitment to ensure the authenticity of the questionnaires. In particular, the respondents were
bicyclists who had ridden bicycles at least once every month on average in the past year. They were informed of the purpose
of the investigation. The locations of the field investigation included commercial centres, bookstores, parks, and universities. All
respondents were invited to participate in the survey with the assurance of anonymity and confidentiality, and after completing
the questionnaire, they were paid 10 yuan as a reward. A total of 649 questionnaires were collected from the investigation

2
Hefei, which is located in eastern China, is the capital of the Anhui province. It had a permanent population of 8.087 million in 2018. According to the Urban
Management Bureau of Hefei, bike-sharing enterprises (such as Mobike) have released 400,000 shared bicycles in Hefei. A survey on the usage of Mobike in the
central area of Hefei found that the total number of rides per day was 43,000, and the average daily number of rides per vehicle was 3.9.
 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75 69

group. Following the removal of cases containing missing values, the final sample contained 547 bicyclists, and the effective
responder rate was 84.28%.

2.4. Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 and AMOS 21.0. EFA and CFA were used to examine the underlying
factorial structure of aberrant cycling behaviours. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify the factors related
to the different behaviour dimensions and the CCBQ behaviours related to crash occurrence.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic characteristics of the sample. EFA using the principal com-
ponent extraction method was used, followed by varimax rotation. Items with loadings below 0.4 were removed, which is
consistent with previous research (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Oetting, & Swaim, 2002; Zhang, Hu, & et al., 2018; Zhang, Zhang, &
et al., 2018). CFA was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation to test the fit of the factor structure. In this manu-
script, different types of indices were used for the estimation: chi-square/degrees of freedom (DF), the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the incremental fit index (IFI) (Useche, Montoro,
Tomas, & Cendales, 2018). Fit was determined from the cut-off criteria previously expanded in the existing research; a
chi-square/DF value less than 5.0, CFI and IFI values higher than 0.90 and RMSEA lower than 0.08 were indicative of adequate
model fitness (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Little, 2013; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). The internal consistency was assessed by cal-
culating Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the effects
of background variables (age, educational background, cycling experience, cycling frequency, the duration of the average
trip, and subjective rule-knowledge) on the dimensions of aberrant cycling behaviours. Furthermore, to address the second
aim of the manuscript, we also modelled the relationships between behaviour dimensions and the occurrence of bicyclists’
crashes using multiple linear regression analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Sample characteristics

The age of the respondents in the final sample (N = 547) ranged from 12 to 64 years (M = 28.5, SD = 9.69), and most
respondents (73.13%) had more than 10 years of cycling experience. Male bicyclists accounted for 53.6% of the respondents,
which was higher than the percentage of their female counterparts, and 42.1% of the respondents were students. A total of
36.2% of the respondents had an undergraduate degree, 27.1% had a post-graduate degree, and 17.9% had received technical
training, which is more advanced than a high school diploma but less advanced than a university degree. Additionally, 11% of
the respondents had a high school diploma, and the remaining 7.8% had a maximum educational level of junior high school
studies.
In terms of some of the cycling habits of the respondents, 86.47% were found to cycle less than 30 min per normal trip,
and 57.6% cycled 1–7 times per week. The respondents used bicycles for different purposes; the main purpose was commut-
ing, followed by transitioning between other modes of transportation (such as transferring to a bus or subway) and then
shopping, entertainment, and exercising. We found that 58% of the respondents were not familiar with the rule of ‘‘only
one juvenile under the age of 12 can be taken on a bicycle when cycling on urban roads”, and 46% of the respondents did
not know that ‘‘when crossing the motorway, you should dismount and push the bicycle instead of cycling directly through”.
With regard to involvement in crashes over the last three years, 513 bicyclists reported that they were involved in at least
one crash (regardless of severity) with other road users, and 486 respondents (88.85% of the sample) indicated that they had
been involved in at least one crash with pedestrians (M = 2.79 crashes with pedestrians, SD = 1.90). A total of 67.46%
(N = 369) of the respondents reported that they had been involved in at least one crash with other non-motor vehicles
(M = 1.20 crashes with other non-motor vehicles, SD = 0.96), and 16.09% (N = 88) reported that they had been involved in
at least one crash with motor vehicles (M = 0.19 crashes with motor vehicles, SD = 0.465). The descriptive characteristics
are shown in Table 2.

3.2. Factor structure of the instrument

To validate the instrument, the 547 respondents were divided into two groups: 274 respondents were randomly selected
for EFA, and the remaining respondents (273) were selected for CFA. To obtain a satisfactory result, we repeatedly modified
and simplified the original scale by deleting items that presented obvious psychometric problems in measuring their factors.
Accordingly, a total of 11 items (2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 24, 30, and 33) were deleted, and the remaining 25 items were tested.
EFA with varimax rotation indicated a 4-factor solution, which accounted for 47.28% of the total variance. CFA was then
applied to validate the goodness-of-fit of the resulting factors. This model fitted the data reasonably well: chi-square/
DF = 2.150, RMSEA = 0.065, CFI = 0.914, and IFI = 0.914.
The loadings that comprise the final four dimensions are presented in Table 3. Based on the underlying themes of the con-
stituent items, these four factors were named rule and aggressive violations, ordinary violations, personal control errors and dis-
tractions. The first factor (a = 0.879) consisted of 9 items, and this dimension included rule violations (e.g., drunk cycling,
70 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75

Table 2
Sample characteristics (n = 547).

Variable Category Description Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender Male 293 53.56
Female 254 46.44
Age (years) <18 31 5.67
18–29 350 63.99
30–39 75 13.71
40–64 91 16.63
Educational background Junior high school and below 43 7.86
High school diploma 60 10.97
Technical training 98 17.92
Undergraduate degree 198 36.20
Post-graduate degree and above 148 27.06
Marital status Unmarried 320 58.50
Married with child/children 182 33.27
Married without child/children 45 8.23
Occupation Student 230 42.05
Worker 33 6.03
Service personnel 32 5.85
Employee of an enterprise 167 30.53
Private/self-employed worker 55 10.05
Retired 10 1.83
Other 20 3.66
Duration of the average trip <15 min 204 37.29
15–30 min 269 49.18
31–45 min 53 9.69
>45 min 21 3.84
Cycling experience 3 years 28 5.12
4–10 years 119 21.76
>10 years 400 73.13
Frequency of crashes with pedestrians in the past three-year period 0 61 11.15
1 55 10.05
2 137 25.05
3 187 34.19
>3 107 19.56
Frequency of crashes with other non-motor vehicles in the past three-year period 0 178 32.54
1 113 20.66
2 224 40.95
3 32 5.85
Frequency of crashes with motor vehicles in the past three-year period 0 459 83.91
1 73 13.35
2 14 2.56
3 1 0.18

changing course without observing the road condition, making a sudden sharp turn) and aggressive violations (e.g., swearing
or making rude gestures if angry with the behaviour of other road users); therefore, this factor was named ‘‘rule and aggres-
sive violations”. Factor 2 concerned ‘‘ordinary violations” (a = 0.778) and consisted of 6 items, most of which were common
phenomena among Chinese bicyclists. The third factor was termed ‘‘personal control errors” (a = 0.777) and consisted of 5
operational errors involving physiological and psychological factors. In the fourth factor, 5 items represented distractive
behaviours, including executing another action or task while cycling; therefore, this factor was named ‘‘distractions”
(a = 0.734).
The internal consistency of the scale was estimated via Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Cronbach’s alpha of the four dimen-
sions varied from 0.734 to 0.879. Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to test the correlation between each dimension and
the CCBQ, as shown in Table 4. The results showed a significant correlation between the dimensions and that the dimensions
were also significantly related to the CCBQ, which indicated that the scale had good content validity.

3.3. The relationship between aberrant cycling behaviours and self-reported crashes

In previous studies, multiple linear regression was conducted to analyse the extent to which the variables were found to
be significantly associated with different dimensions of behaviour (e.g., Feng et al., 2017; Maslać, Antić, Lipovac, Pešić, &
Milutinović, 2018). In this study, the independent variables included gender, age, educational background, cycling experi-
ence, cycling frequency, the duration of the average trip, and subjective rule-knowledge. The results are shown in Table 5.
 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75 71

Table 3
Factor structure of the CCBQ.

No. Item M(SD) Factor

Loading
Factor 1——Rule and aggressive violations: 13.80% of the variance, eigenvalue = 3.45 M (SD) = 1.39 (0.52)
6 When crossing a motorway, you pass directly without looking left or right 1.41(0.831) 0.675
8 Drunk cycling 1.19(0.552) 0.508
10 Changing course (such as turning, avoiding obstacles, passing pedestrians) without observing the road 1.47(0.737) 0.612
condition, making a sudden sharp turn
12 When crossing an intersection without traffic lights, you do not approach the intersection slowly or stop to 1.44(0.742) 0.492
look around but pass directly through
19 Zigzagging and forcibly squeezing through vehicles or pedestrians 1.41(0.726) 0.463
22 Watching videos when cycling (variety shows, TV series, etc.) 1.18(0.572) 0.608
31 Swearing or making rude gestures if angry with the behaviour of other road users 1.51(0.785) 0.511
34 When turning at an intersection, you may cross the path of vehicles (motor vehicles, non-motorized 1.60(0.858) 0.503
vehicles) or pedestrians
36 When overtaking the vehicle in front of you, you obstruct the passing vehicle 1.28(0.688) 0.626
Factor 2——Ordinary violations: 12.53% of the variance, eigenvalue = 3.13 M (SD) = 1.97 (0.63)
3 Cycling against the direction of traffic 2.02(0.891) 0.608
11 Not cycling in accordance with traffic lights, traffic signs, marking line instructions (such as running red 1.68(0.789) 0.604
lights)
17 When a dedicated bicycle lane is available, you still cycle on the motorway 1.97(0.867) 0.695
21 Cycling on the sidewalk 2.11(0.831) 0.614
23 When crossing the motorway, you cycle directly through instead of dismounting and pushing the bicycle 2.33(1.155) 0.670
32 You become impatient with slow drivers/bicyclists in front, and you always want to overtake in the 1.71(0.897) 0.534
absence of overtaking conditions (such as attempting to overtake someone that you had not noticed to be
signalling a turn)
Factor 3——Personal control errors: 11.27% of the variance, eigenvalue = 2.82 M (SD) = 1.85 (0.61)
25 Your line of vision is obscured, and you are unable to clearly see the road in front of you (i.e., your glasses 1.81(0.820) 0.605
are foggy; rain and sweat cover your eyes)
26 Being off balance and nearly bumping into other vehicles or pedestrians 1.73(0.758) 0.587
27 The weather is cold; your hands are frozen; and your cycling becomes stiff 2.07(0.895) 0.713
28 When encountering a frightened animal (such as a large dog) on the road, the tension affects your cycling 1.78(0.876) 0.750
29 Braking very abruptly on a slippery surface 1.84(0.826) 0.657
Factor 4——Distractions: 9.68% of the variance, eigenvalue = 2.42 M (SD) = 1.80 (0.63)
1 Cycling with one hand and executing other actions with the other hand (holding up umbrellas, eating, etc.) 2.07(0.949) 0.547
15 Cycling alongside friends and holding hands 1.44(0.769) 0.429
18 Talking on the phone while cycling 1.78(0.797) 0.615
20 Chatting with others by Message/WeChat/QQ while cycling 1.54(0.777) 0.754
35 Listening to audio (i.e., music) while cycling 2.14(1.150) 0.613

Table 4
Correlations between dimensions and the total scale.

Dimensions Rule and aggressive violations Ordinary violations Personal control errors Distractions
Rule and aggressive violations –
Ordinary violations 0.584** –
Personal control errors 0.563** 0.438** –
Distractions 0.626** 0.557** 0.462** –
Total scale 0.885** 0.804** 0.736** 0.803**
**
p < 0.01.

Table 5
Factors associated with behaviour dimensions.

Rule and aggressive violations Ordinary violations Personal control errors Distractions
Gender 0.140** 0.184** 0.039 0.153**
Age 0.305** 0.175 0.234* 0.483**
Educational background 0.146** 0.096* 0.167** 0.046
Cycling experience 0.163 0.102 0.066 0.233*
Cycling frequency 0.007 0.127** 0.096* 0.068
Duration of the average trip 0.091* 0.045 0.011 0.083*
Subjective rule-knowledge 0.114** 0.297** 0.148** 0.133**
R2 0.103 0.175 0.087 0.159
Adjusted R2 0.091** 0.165** 0.075** 0.149**
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
72 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75

Table 6
Factors associated with the occurrence of crashes (in the past three years).

Variable All crashes between Crashes between Crashes between

bicyclists and other bicyclists bicyclists and other
road users and pedestrians non-motor vehicles
Step 1: Enter R2 = 0.201, Adjusted R2 = 0.185, Adjusted R2 = 0.096, Adjusted
R2 = 0.200 R2 = 0.183 R2 = 0.094
b t b t b t
Age 0.324** 9.860 0.289** 9.359 0.285** 6.999
Step 2: Stepwise
b DR2 b DR2 b DR2
Rule and aggressive violations 0.210** 0.050 0.273** 0.266 – –
Ordinary violations 0.257** 0.204 0.265** 0.064 0.154** 0.023
Personal control errors – – – – – –
Distractions 0.153** 0.012 0.168** 0.015 – –
R2 = 0.467, Adjusted R2 = 0.529, Adjusted R2 = 0.119, Adjusted
R2 = 0.463 R2 = 0.526 R2 = 0.116
**
p < 0.01.

Gender, age, educational background, the duration of the average trip and subjective rule-knowledge have been iden-
tified as contributors to rule and aggressive violations, explaining 9.1% of the variance, F (7, 539) = 8.832, p < 0.001.
Gender, educational background, cycling frequency and subjective rule-knowledge were significantly associated with
ordinary violations, with 16.5% of the variance explained, F (7,539) = 16.365, p < 0.001. The contributors to personal control
errors were age, educational background, cycling frequency and subjective rule-knowledge, explaining 7.5% of the vari-
ance, F (7,539) = 7.318, p < 0.001. Gender, age, cycling experience, the duration of the average trip and subjective rule-
knowledge appeared to contribute significantly to distractions, with 14.9% of the variance explained, F (7,539) = 14.605,
p < 0.001.
The correlations of the variables (demographic variables and behaviour dimensions) with self-reported crashes were
determined by applying hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis. Separate analyses are reported here: (a) ‘‘all
crashes” during the last 3 years, (b) ‘‘crashes between bicyclists and pedestrians”, (c) ‘‘crashes between bicyclists and other
non-motor vehicles”, and (d) ‘‘crashes between bicyclists and motor vehicles”. In each analysis, demographic variables were
entered first and incorporated by forced entry, and the behaviour dimensions (rule and aggressive violations, ordinary viola-
tions, personal control errors, and distractions) were entered in a stepwise fashion as the second block. During data processing,
the regression model (d) failed to explain the crashes between bicyclists and motor vehicles. The beta-coefficients of the sig-
nificant variables related to the occurrence of self-reported crashes are shown in Table 6.
Age, rule and aggressive violations, ordinary violations and distractions were significantly associated with all self-reported
crashes in the past three years and accounted for 46.3% of the variance. Among all the aberrant behaviours, the ordinary vio-
lations factor was the strongest contributor to all crashes, explaining 20.4% of the total variance.
Age, rule and aggressive violations, ordinary violations and distractions were significantly associated with self-reported
crashes with pedestrians, and the regression model explained 52.6% of the total variance. Crucially, the rule and aggressive
violations factor was the strongest contributor to the occurrence of crashes between bicyclists and pedestrians in the last
three years, explaining 26.6% of the total variance.
Age and ordinary violations appeared to be highly associated with self-reported crashes with other non-motor vehicles,
with 11.6% of the variance explained.

4. Discussion

A questionnaire was developed to assess the behaviours of Chinese bicyclists. Tests on a sample of 547 bicyclists were
carried out to explore the underlying structure of the CCBQ and to analyse the reliability and validity of the instrument. Then,
we investigated the relations between aberrant cycling behaviours and variables (demographic variables, cycling habits, and
subjective rule-knowledge) and determined the factor(s) associated with self-reported crashes. The findings are discussed in
the following sections.

4.1. Factor structure of the CCBQ

For the first objective, the results showed that the data best fit into the four-factor solution, which explained 47.28% of the
variance, and factor analysis confirmed the four dimensions. The distinction between intentional violations (rule and aggres-
sive violations, ordinary violations and distractions) and unintentional errors (personal control errors) was the same as the clas-
 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75 73

sification of human errors. These composite scales exhibited good internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values above
0.70.
The items in the first factor included violations of Chinese traffic rules and aggressive violations. Items in this factor
referred to deliberate behaviours, which implied precipitance and an underlying tendency to ignore traffic regulations.
Aggressive violations were also loaded in this factor. The factor was categorized as ‘‘rule and aggressive violations”, which
is similar to the ‘‘violation” category in the DBQ (Shi, Bai, Ying, & Atchley, 2010; Xie & Parker, 2002). Additionally, some items
were analogous to the ‘‘traffic violations” category in the BRBQ, the ‘‘exceptional violations” category in the ACBQ, and the
‘‘violations” category in the CBQ (Feenstra et al., 2011; Hezaveh et al., 2018; Useche, Montoro, Tomas, & Cendales, 2018).
The scenarios in the second factor described behaviours that achieved personal mobility aims and gained advantages for
convenience regardless of the legality of the behaviours involved. Compared with motor vehicle drivers, bicyclists are less
regulated in China. No training or licensing requirements have been established for bicyclists before they begin to cycle
on the road, and no corresponding penalty system exists for bicyclists who engage in illegal behaviour while cycling.
Aberrant behaviours (e.g., running red lights, cycling in opposite directions, occupying motorized vehicle lanes) involving
bicyclists are generally observed in low- and middle-income countries, including China (Du et al., 2013; King, 2015; Wu,
Yao, & Zhang, 2012; Zhang et al., 2019). We named this dimension ‘‘ordinary violations”. This factor belonged to the same
dimension as ‘‘self-willed violations” (Shi et al., 2010) and the ‘‘ordinary violations” category in the DBQ (e.g., Sullman,
Meadows, & Pajo, 2002). Some items were similar to the scenarios in the ‘‘traffic violations” category of the BRBQ, the ‘‘com-
mon violations” category in the ACBQ and the ‘‘violations” category in the CBQ (Feenstra et al., 2011; Hezaveh et al., 2018;
Useche, Montoro, Tomas, & Cendales, 2018).
Focusing next on control errors, the items loading onto this factor covered behaviours that were non-intentional and due
to emotional stress and lack of skill; this factor was named ‘‘personal control errors”. The broad consistency between this
result and those of some DBQ studies that have found errors relating to inexperience or lapses in control is notable (e.g.,
Aberg & Rimmö, 1998; Rimmö & Hakamies-Blomqvist, 2002). Similar items were presented in the MRBQ and BRBQ, such
as unintentional errors due to insufficient cycling skills and incorrect handling (Elliott et al., 2007; Hezaveh et al., 2018).
Therefore, this factor was in a similar dimension as ‘‘control errors” in previous research and was analogous to the ‘‘errors”
category in the CBQ (Useche, Montoro, Tomas, & Cendales, 2018).
Finally, a factor related to distractions emerged from our data indicating that bicyclists were engaged in other activities
while cycling. We named this dimension ‘‘distractions”. Wolfe, Arabian, Breeze, and Salzler (2016) summarized two types of
distractions: auditory (ear buds/phones in or on ears), and visual/tactile (an electronic device or another object in hand). The
items in this factor contain the types of distractions. This factor was in a similar dimension as the ‘‘stunts and distractions”
category in the BRBQ and the ‘‘violations” category in the CBQ (Hezaveh et al., 2018; Useche, Montoro, Tomas, & Cendales,
2018).

4.2. Correlations of the variables with the aberrant cycling behaviours on the CCBQ scale

In this study, gender was significantly associated with rule and aggressive violations, ordinary violations and distractions.
Male bicyclists were reported to engage in these aberrant behaviours more frequently than their female counterparts,
and this finding is also consistent with most results of previous research (e.g., Useche, Montoro, Alonso, & Tortosa, 2018;
Useche, Montoro, Tomas, & Cendales, 2018).
Age was related to rule and aggressive violations, personal control errors and distractions; young bicyclists were more prone
to these aberrant behaviours than older bicyclists. This result is consistent with the findings of previous studies on the DBQ,
MRBQ and BRBQ, which demonstrated that older bicyclists were more compliant with rules and normative elements than
younger bicyclists (Goldenbeld, Houtenbos, Ehlers, & De Waard, 2012; Igari, Shimizu, & Fukuda, 2008; Johnson, Charlton,
Oxley, & Newstead, 2013). These findings indicate that more efforts should be directed towards promoting and enhancing
the subjective rule-knowledge of young people.
Cycling experience was positively correlated with distractions. This finding can be explained by the lack of confidence
among novice riders to engage in some aberrant behaviours compared to experienced riders (Sakashita et al., 2014).
Wierda and Brookhuis (2010) also found that inexperienced bicyclists were not free to allocate attention to other tasks or
actions, while experienced bicyclists had a greater cognitive capacity because the mental processes related to cycling
required less attention. More experienced bicyclists were usually more confident in their skills, which increased their inci-
dence of distractions, while novices were more careful and concentrated more on cycling itself and were therefore less prone
to distractions.
Subjective rule-knowledge was a significant related factor for all dimensions of the CCBQ. Bicyclists with poorer knowl-
edge of road rules had a higher incidence of aberrant behaviours, which indirectly showed the importance of increasing the
awareness of citizens regarding relevant rules to enhance traffic safety.

4.3. Correlations of the behaviours on the CCBQ scale with self-reported crashes involving bicyclists

Age, rule and aggressive violations, ordinary violations and distractions were identified as contributors to all self-reported
crashes between bicyclists and other road users. These variables were also found to be significantly associated with self-
reported crashes between bicyclists and pedestrians. Older bicyclists have a lower occurrence of self-reported crashes than
74 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75

younger bicyclists. More violations correspond to a higher occurrence of all self-reported crashes, which is consistent with
the findings of other studies (Hezaveh et al., 2018; Martínez-Ruiz et al., 2015; Sakashita et al., 2014; Useche, Montoro,
Alonso, & Oviedo-Trespalacios, 2018).
Among the aberrant behaviours, the ordinary violations factor was the strongest contributor to all self-reported crashes
and self-reported crashes between bicyclists and other non-motor vehicles, while the rule and aggressive violations factor
was the strongest contributor to self-reported crashes between bicyclists and pedestrians. The personal control errors factor
was not a related factor in any multi-vehicle crashes in contrast to the findings in the study of Hezaveh et al. (2018), which
identified a positive correlation between control errors and self-reported multi-vehicle crashes.

5. Limitations and future research

First, the study suffers from the typical limitations of research based on self-reported data; thus, its veracity was com-
pletely dependent on the truthfulness and accuracy of the respondents. The researchers informed the respondents about
the content and purpose of the questionnaire before the study commenced, and the respondents answered the questionnaire
anonymously and were paid for their participation. Therefore, the researchers hoped to minimize the negative effect of social
desirability and to guarantee the veracity of the data as much as possible. Second, the survey was conducted in Hefei, Anhui,
China, the city where the author’s university is located, and did not cover other cities. The cultural differences between
southern and northern China may affect the behaviours of bicyclists. In the future, studies should compare several Chinese
cities to validate the conclusions reported here. In addition, a large percentage of the sample in this study consisted of
respondents with a higher educational background as well as students; future studies should increase the scale and diversity
of samples, thus improving the statistical efficacy. Regarding further research on the behaviours of bicyclists, we also recom-
mend that data should be obtained from real vehicle experiments and simulator experiments as in previous studies targeting
drivers (e.g., Feng, Yang, Zhang, Du, & Bai, 2018; Wang, Kong, & Fu, 2019).

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by the ‘‘National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51878236, 51578207, and
51678211)”, the ‘‘Open Project of Key Laboratory of Ministry of Public Security for Road Traffic Safety (2018ZDSYSKFKT02)”,
‘‘The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. JZ2017 HGTB 0209)” and the ‘‘Anhui Science and Tech-
nology Project - Sci-tech Police (No. 1704d0802189)”.

References

Aberg, L., & Rimmö, P. A. (1998). Dimensions of aberrant driver behaviour. Ergonomics, 41(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398187314.
Alonso, F., Esteban, C., Useche, S., & Manso, V. (2016). Analysis of the state and development of road safety education in spanish higher education
institutions. High Education Research, 1, 10–18.
Bener, A., Ozkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2008). The driver behaviour questionnaire in Arab Gulf countries: Qatar and United Arab Emirates. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 40(4), 1411–1417.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Blockey, P. N., & Hartley, L. R. (1995). Aberrant driving behaviour: Errors and violations. Ergonomics, 38(9), 1759–1771. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00140139508925225.
Cheng, A. S., & Ng, T. C. (2010). Development of a Chinese motorcycle rider driving violation questionnaire. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(4), 1250–1256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.01.018.
Constant, A., Messiah, A., Felonneau, M. L., & Lagarde, E. (2012). Investigating helmet promotion for cyclists: Results from a randomised study with
observation of behaviour, using a semi-automatic video system. Plos One, 7(2), e31651.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Swaim, R. C. (2002). The driving anger expression inventory: A measure of how people express their anger on
the road. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 40(6), 717–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00063-8.
De Winter, J., & Dodou, D. (2010). The driver behaviour questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 41(6), 463–470.
Du, W., Yang, J., Powis, B., Zheng, X., Ozanne-Smith, J., Bilston, L., et al (2013). Understanding on-road practices of electric bike riders: an observational study
in a developed city of China. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 59(4), 319–326.
Elander, J., West, R., & French, D. (1993). Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: An examination method and findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.2.279.
Elliott, M. A., Baughan, C. J., & Sexton, B. F. (2007). Errors and violations in relation to motorcyclists’ crash risk. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(3), 491–499.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.012.
European Road Safety Observatory (2017). Traffic safety basic facts 2017. Cyclists. Web resource. http://go.uv.es/VfA0Zwc.
Feenstra, H., Ruiter, R. A. C., Schepers, J., Peters, G. J., & Kok, G. (2011). Measuring risky adolescent cycling behavior. International Journal of Injury Control &
Safety Promotion, 18(3), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2010.540334.
Feng, Z. X., Yang, M. M., Zhang, W. H., Du, Y. J., & Bai, H. J. (2018). Effect of longitudinal slope of urban underpass tunnels on drivers’ heart rate and speed: A
study based on a real vehicle experiment. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 81, 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.08.032.
Feng, Z. X., Zhan, J. J., Liu, J., Zhang, W. H., Zhou, M. X., & Wang, K. (2017). Development and validation of highway emergency lane illegal occupancy scale for
Chinese drivers. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2634, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.3141/2634-08.
Gaither, T. W., Sanford, T. A., Awad, M. A., Osterberg, E. C., Murphy, G. P., Lawrence, B. A., et al (2017). Estimated total costs from non-fatal and fatal bicycle
crashes in the USA: 1997–2013. Injury Prevention, 24(2), 2016–042281. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042281.
Goldenbeld, C., Houtenbos, M., Ehlers, E., & De Waard, D. (2012). The use and risk of portable electronic devices while cycling among different age groups.
Journal of Safety Research, 43(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2011.08.007.
Gras, M. E., Sullman, M. J. M., Cunill, M., Planes, M., Aymerich, M., & Font-Mayolas, S. (2006). Spanish drivers and their aberrant driving behaviours.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 9(2).
Hezaveh, A. M., Zavareh, M. F., Cherry, C. F., & Nordfjærn, T. (2018). Errors and violations in relation to bicyclists’ crash risks: Development of the bicycle
rider behavior questionnaire (BRBQ). Journal of Transport & Health, 8, 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.11.003.
 C. Wang et al. / Transportation Research Part F 66 (2019) 63–75 75

Huemer, A. K., Buttersack, H., Laubersheimer, S., & Führer, R. (2015). Motivation for traffic-rule infringements among cyclists in Germany. Presentation at the
4th international conference on cycling safety, hannover, September 15–16, 2015.
Huemer, A. K. (2018). Motivating and deterring factors for two common traffic-rule violations of cyclists in Germany. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology & Behaviour, 54, 223–235.
Igari, D., Shimizu, M., & Fukuda, R. (2008). Eye movements of elderly people while riding bicycles. The 6th international conference of the international society
for gerontechnology, Pisa, Italy.
Johnson, M., Charlton, J., Oxley, J., & Newstead, S. (2013). Why do cyclists infringe at red lights? An investigation of Australian cyclists’ reasons for red light
infringement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50(1), 840–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.07.008.
Johnson, M., Oxley, J., Newstead, S., & Charlton, J. (2014). Safety in numbers? Investigating Australian driver behaviour, knowledge and attitudes towards
cyclists. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 70, 148–154.
King, M. (2015),Traffic behaviour and compliance with the law in low and middle income countries: are we observing ‘‘pragmatic driving”? In Proceedings
of the 2015 Australasian road safety conference, Gold Coast, Qld. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/90094/9/90094.pdf.
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (2004). The Manchester driver behaviour questionnaire: A cross-cultural study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(2),
231–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00152-5.
Lang, I. A. (2010). Demographic, socioeconomic, and attitudinal associations with children’s cycle-helmet use in the absence of legislation. Injury Prevention,
34(1), 135–136.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Maslać, M., Antić, B., Lipovac, K., Pešić, D., & Milutinović, N. (2018). Behaviours of drivers in Serbia: non-professional versus professional drivers.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 52, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.11.020.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and
dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
Martí-Belda, A., Bosó, P., Lijarcio, I., & López, C. (2016). Análisis de la siniestralidad en ciclistas 2008–2013 (Analysis of accidents in cyclists 2008–2013).
Proceedings of the XII congress in transport engineering, Valencia, Spain, 7–9 June 2016.
Martínez-Ruiz, V., Jiménez-Mejías, E., Amezcua-Prieto, C., Olmedo-Requena, R., Luna-Del-Castillo, J. D. D., & Lardelli-Claret, P. (2015). Contribution of
exposure, risk of crash and fatality to explain age- and sex-related differences in traffic-related cyclist mortality rates. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 76,
152–158.
Motevalian, S. A., Asadilari, M., Rahimi, H., & Eftekhar, M. (2011). Validation of a Persian version of motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire. Annals of
Advances in Automotive Medicine, 55, 91–98.
Özkan, T., Lajunen, T., Doğruyol, B., Yıldırım, Z., & Çoymak, A. (2012). Motorcycle accidents, rider behaviour, and psychological models. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 49(9), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.009.
Pan, D. F., & Jiang, S. Z. (2019). Discussion on the causes of bicycle accidents in Shenzhen. Urban Traffic Planning.
Parker, D., Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Driving errors, driving violations and accident involvement. Ergonomics, 38(5), 1036–1048.
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the roads: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33(10–11),
1315–1332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139008925335.
Rimmö, P., & Hakamies-Blomqvist, L. (2002). Older drivers’ aberrant driving behaviour, impaired activity, and health as reasons for self-imposed driving
limitations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 5(1), 47–62.
Sakashita, C., Senserrick, T., Lo, S., Boufous, S., Rome, L. D., & Ivers, R. (2014). The motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire : Psychometric properties and
application amongst novice riders in Australia. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 22(1), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trf.2013.10.005.
Shi, J., Bai, Y., Ying, X., & Atchley, P. (2010). Aberrant driving behaviors: A study of drivers in Beijing. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(4), 1031–1040.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.010.
Steg, L., & Brussel, A. V. (2009). Accidents, aberrant behaviours, and speeding of young moped riders. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology &
Behaviour, 12(6), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.09.001.
Stephens, A. N., Brown, J., De Rome, L., Baldock, M. R. J., Fernandes, R., & Fitzharris, M. (2017). The relationship between motorcycle rider behaviour
questionnaire scores and crashes for riders in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 102, 202–212.
Sullman, M. J. M., Meadows, M. L., & Pajo, K. B. (2002). Aberrant driving behaviours amongst New Zealand truck drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology & Behaviour, 5(3), 217–232.
Useche, S. A., Montoro, L., Alonso, F., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. (2018a). Infrastructural and human factors affecting safety outcomes of cyclists.
Sustainability, 10(2), 299. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020299.
Useche, S. A., Montoro, L., Alonso, F., & Tortosa, F. M. (2018b). Does gender really matter? a structural equation model to explain risky and positive cycling
behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 118, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.05.022.
Useche, S. A., Montoro, L., Tomas, J. M., & Cendales, B. (2018c). Validation of the cycling behavior questionnaire: A tool for measuring cyclists’ road behaviors.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology Behaviour, 58, 1021–1030.
Verschuur, W. L. G. (2003). Onderzoek uitgevoerd met de ‘Driver Behaviour Questionnaire’. Eindrapport (Research based on the ‘Driver Behaviour
Questionnaire’. Final report). Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, Werkgroep Veiligheid/R-03/68 (in Dutch).
Wang, J., Kong, Y., & Fu, T. (2019). Expressway crash risk prediction using back propagation neural network: A brief investigation on safety resilience.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 124, 180–192.
Wierda, M., & Brookhuis, K. A. (2010). Analysis of cycling skill: A cognitive approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 113–122.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2015). Global status report on road safety 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
Wolfe, S. E., Arabian, S. S., Breeze, J. L., & Salzler, M. J. (2016). Distracted biking: An observational study. Journal of Trauma Nursing the Official Journal of the
Society of Trauma Nurses, 23(2), 65–70.
Wu, C., Yao, L., & Zhang, K. (2012). The red-light running behavior of electric bike riders and cyclists at urban intersections in China: An observational study.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49(11), 186–192.
Xie, C. Q., & Parker, D. (2002). A social psychological approach to driving violations in two Chinese cities. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology &
Behaviour, 5(4), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00034-7.
Yao, L., & Wu, C. (2012). Traffic safety for electric bike riders in China: Attitudes, risk perception, and aberrant riding behaviors. Transportation Research
Record, 24(2314), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.3141/2314-07.
Zhang, W. H., Hu, Z., Feng, Z. X., Ma, C. X., Wang, K., & Zhang, X. X. (2018a). Investigating factors influencing drivers’ speed selection behavior under reduced
visibility conditions. Traffic Injury Prevention, 19(5), 488–494.
Zhang, W. H., Zhang, X. X., Feng, Z. X., Liu, J., Zhou, M. X., & Wang, K. (2018b). The fitness-to-drive of shift-work taxi drivers with obstructive sleep apnea: An
investigation of self-reported driver behavior and skill. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 59, 545–554.
Zhang, W. H., Zhou, C., Huang, W. J., Tao, H., Wang, K., Feng, Z. X., et al (2019). Investigating factors affecting riders’ behaviors of occupying motorized vehicle
lanes on urban streets. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 122, 127–133.
Zhou, W. L. (2017). Accidents caused by sharing bicycles? Bicycle accidents in Shenzhen increased by 80%. Guangzhou Daily. http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/2017-
08-08/docifyitayr9682471.shtml.