Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

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

Comparison of injury severity between E-bikes-related and other

two-wheelers-related accidents: Based on an accident dataset
Qian Qian , Jing Shi *
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study aims to compare the accident injury severity of e-bikes with that of other types of two-wheelers based
E-bikes on accident data and to analyze the factors influencing them. Using 1015 police accident records from Zhang­
Ordered Probit analysis jiakou City in 2020 and 2021, the accident injury severity of e-bikes was firstly compared with that of other two-
Accident injury severity
wheelers based on five levels of accident injury severity classified according to the records. Two ordered Probit
Accident influential factors
Two-wheelers
regression models were secondly used to compare the factors influencing the accident injury severity of e-bikes
Contribution with that of other two-wheelers and the magnitude of their effects. At the same time, the contributions of each
influential factor to the degree of accident injury of two-wheelers were estimated with the assistance of classi­
fication trees. Results show that e-bikes are closer to bicycles than motorcycles in terms of injury severities and
the factors influencing them, in which the factors “accident configuration,” “division of responsibility for the
accident,” and “collision with a heavy vehicle or four-wheeled vehicle” are significant. Based on the findings,
potential measures are suggested to reduce e-bike accident casualties, such as improving rider education,
ensuring speed limit enforcement, promoting safety equipment wearing, and making road design friendly to non-
motorized and elderly riders. The results of this study can provide an essential reference for traffic management
and rider education measures on e-bikes.

1. Introduction
Two-wheelers, including bicycles, e-bikes, and powered two-
wheelers (PTWs), are essential to road traffic. Among them, e-bikes
have a unique and important position in China. In China, the official
definition of an e-bike is “a two-wheeled bicycle with the ability to be
propelled by pedaling, with an on-board battery as an auxiliary energy
source, and capable of being electric aided or/and electric driven.”
Additionally, the actual determination of an e-bike is subject to triple
restrictions of speed, weight, and power.
In 2018, China introduced a new Safety technical specification for
electric bicycles (GB 17761–2018), referred to as the “New National
Standard.” The standard requires electric bicycles to have a designed
speed of no more than 25 km/h, a maximum motor power of 400w, and
a pedaling function (but the electric drive function can still be used
without pedaling). Previously, it was not mandatory for e-bikes to have a
pedaling function, nor was there a technical requirement to limit the
maximum speed, resulting in e-bikes being regularly managed as non-
motorized vehicles, even if their maximum design speed exceeded 25
km/h.
According to this definition, e-bikes include both (i) electric-driven
ones (electric propelled bicycles whose feature is available till the
maximum designed speed) and (ii) “electric-aided bicycles” (or electric-
assisted bicycles, pedelecs) which have no electric drive function.
Various countries define the former as PTWs and only consider the latter
as bicycles (Otte & Facius, 2019). Although both types are allowed on
the Chinese market, the market share of the latter is so small that e-bike
research in China rarely pays attention to it (Gu et al., 2020). Therefore,
for ease of interpretation, the term “e-bike” in this paper refers exclu­
sively to the electric-driven type.
Unlike most developed countries, electric-driven e-bikes are not
considered as PTWs in China and are generally only allowed to be driven
on non-motorized lanes; e-bike drivers do not need to register their
vehicles, attend driver training courses, or acquire driving licenses like
PTW drivers do. In addition, pedaling functions are often degenerated in
the design of electric-driven e-bikes and are rarely used (or even
removed) by riders. Subsequently, the characteristics of actual e-bike
traffic have deviated from expectations, making e-bike management

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jingshi@tsinghua.edu.cn (J. Shi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107189
Received 26 October 2022; Received in revised form 24 May 2023; Accepted 21 June 2023
Available online 28 June 2023
0001-4575/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Qian and J. Shi
more complicated.
As a developing country, China has a massive market for two-
wheelers. However, two-wheeler traffic is not always welcomed by
local authorities. About 150 ~ 200 cities in China, including all “first-
tier” megacities (such as Guangzhou and Shenzhen) and lots of metro­
polises, have enacted a “motorcycle ban.” When a “motorcycle ban” is
enacted, the local authority stops issuing new motorcycle licenses or
excludes motorcycles from arterial roads needed for commuting (Fair­
ley, 2005; Xu, 2014). The ban aims at reducing irregularities, road ac­
cidents, and pollution. Due to the “motorcycle ban,” considerable
customers have turned to the specific two-wheeled category of e-bikes.
According to the China Bicycle Association, the number of e-bikes in
China reached nearly 300 million in 2019 and is still growing at an
average annual rate of over 30 million (around 10%) (Xinhuanet, 2019).
The use of e-bikes has also postponed some citizens’ plans to purchase
cars, acting as a brake on the growth of car ownership (Shao et al.,
2022), thus helping to slow down the trend of road traffic congestion in
some cities and being recognized by city administrators. For these rea­
sons, e-bikes have become the dominant mode of two-wheeled transport
in Chinese cities and arguably one of the main modes of transport (Gu
et al., 2020).
On the other hand, the number of traffic accidents and casualties of
two-wheelers, especially of e-bikes, remains high. According to WHO, in
2016, nearly half of all traffic fatalities in the Western Pacific and South-
East Asia regions were attributed to bicycle and motorized two- (or
three-) wheeled vehicle accidents (WHO, 2018), in which e-bikes were
included. In China, the share of motorcycle and non-motorized vehicle-
related accident fatalities in all accident fatalities continues to grow
from 22.5% in 2016 (compared to 16% in Europe in the same year) to
24% in 2020, with e-bikes accounting for more than a quarter of all
motorcycle and non-motorized vehicle-related accident fatalities (NBS,
2022).
Although the current situation of e-bike accidents is not negligible,
accident prevention measures for e-bikes in China are still inadequate
and dilemmatic in implying. On the one hand, the technical standards
for e-bikes have had to be brought closer to those of bicycles due to the
“motorcycle ban” policy, while the road safety law also treats them as
non-motorized vehicles. On the other hand, some Chinese cities are
requiring all e-bike passengers to wear helmets like motorcycle pas­
sengers. This contradiction suggests that in China, e-bikes are seen as
“stronger bicycles”: they are regulated as non-motorized vehicles but
receive more caution and restrictions than bicycles. However, the situ­
ation that these “bicycles without pedals” can share non-motorized lanes
with real bicycles remains highly controversial.
Therefore, comparing the casualties of e-bike riders with those of
motorcycles and bicycles, and reconsidering the effect of each element
on injury severities in e-bike accidents, can be of great value to transport
authorities in vehicle classification and management, right-of-way
allocation, and rider education.
Numerous studies have been conducted on analyzing accident
influential factors based on accident data for each type of two-wheelers,
mainly motorcycles and e-bikes (Almannaa et al., 2020; L. Hu et al.,
2020). In motorcycle studies, accident configuration, i.e., the pattern of
a collision between two (or one or more) parties in an accident, has
received more attention. Penumaka et al. (2014) extracted five broad
categories of accident configurations using the Motorcycle Accident In-
Depth Study (MAIDS). Of the five categories of accident configurations,
the most severe one was when an opposing car turned left and struck a
motorcycle passing straight ahead, while the most common one was
when a car turning left/right blocked a motorcycle passing straight
ahead in the same direction. Atalar and Thomas (2019) s used the Road
Accident In-depth Study (RAIDS) data from the UK to cluster the
motorcycle accidents. The analysis of attribution and faults for the
different accident types showed that a significant proportion of acci­
dents were not caused by violations but rather by a perceptual error
called “looked but failed to see,” i.e., the driver failed to see the vehicle
2
Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189
or object with which he was about to collide (Wolfe et al., 2022). Ac­
cident attribution has also revealed riders’ distraction as a rare factor
attributed to two-wheeler-related accidents.
In e-bike studies, more diverse influential accident factors were of
interest. E-bike casualties stem from the sheer volume of traffic, the
vehicle’s “vulnerable road user” nature (Blaizot et al., 2013), and the
rider’s aberrant riding behaviors (Hu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021b).
Therefore, investigating the characteristics of accident-influential fac­
tors of e-bikes can help to reduce e-bike accident casualties and improve
the safety of e-bike traffic. Data analysis by T. Wang et al. (2018) showed
that e-bike riders are injured more severely in collisions with trucks or
motorcycles on motorways impermissible to e-bikes; the authors also
found that e-bike riders get more injuries if they have committed more
violations of traffic rules than their counterparts. Additionally, an
analysis by Guo et al. (2019) of factors influencing the injury severity of
e-bike riders revealed that four parameters - gender, distraction, type of
e-bike, and speed limit - were random parameters that had significant
heterogeneous effects on the severity of e-bike accidents. Furthermore,
the study revealed that younger riders were more likely to be involved in
accidents than older riders.
Collating the independent variables that appear in the relevant
literature, the primary accident elements of interest for e-bike and other
two-wheeler-related accident studies were obtained, as shown in
Table 1.
The data source is often related to the study purposes in accident
studies (Theofilatos & Yannis, 2015). In factor studies about accident
severity, data sources are generally from hospitals, police, or in-depth
accident studies by independent investigation groups, such as MAIDS,
RAIDS, CIDAS (Hu et al., 2014), and MCCS (Morris et al., 2018). Other
data sources, such as questionnaires and video-based analyses of vehicle
performance, have also improved researchers’ understanding of acci­
dent factors. For example, Yao and Wu’s questionnaire study of
motorcycle riders in two large cities in China showed that male riders,
riders without driving licenses, and riders who performed errors and
aggressive driving behaviors were more likely to be involved in at-fault
accidents (Yao & Wu, 2012). Ye et al.’s video analysis results of e-bike
crashes showed that motor vehicle drivers’ violations rather than e-bike
riders’ violations significantly increased the risk of casualty for e-bike
riders (Ye et al., 2021).
Since e-bikes are regulated as non-motorized vehicles in China,
questions and even resists against traffic management measures on e-
bikes alone arise continuously (Yu et al., 2019). Thus, it becomes
necessary to compare e-bikes with motorized two-wheelers and con­
ventional bicycles to assess whether the classification of e-bikes as non-
motorized vehicles is sensible. Notwithstanding, comparative studies
across two-wheeler categories are rare, even when inspecting different
data sources. Meanwhile, the accident studies comparing e-bikes with
motorized and non-motorized two-wheelers have not performed
regression or predictive analyses so far (Junior et al., 2012; Sporri et al.,
2021; Yun et al., 2022). In addition, accident data from police and
hospital sources are usually casualty-exclusive due to the accident
recording process. Therefore, the classification of injury severity is often
more biased towards severe injuries and fatal injuries, ignoring the ex­
istence of minor accidents without casualties, making the conclusions
often biased towards avoiding fatalities in accidents and rarely discus­
sing avoiding injuries.
Regarding these gaps in existing studies, the current study firstly
used a police accident dataset containing minor accidents for a more
efficient classification of injury severity and typical accident elements
for data processing. The accident injury severity of e-bikes was secondly
compared with that of motorcycles and bicycles. Ordered Probit re­
gressions were finally conducted on each vehicle type separately to
compare the significance and coefficients of factors in each vehicle type.
At the same time, a classification tree approach was used as a functional
complement to the ordered Probit regression models to analyze the
contribution of each influential factor to the accident injury severity of
Q. Qian and J. Shi Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189

each type of two-wheeler to determine what differences between e-bikes

and motorized or non-motorized two-wheelers worth remarkable

Opponent’s
attention. The results are combined to suggest traffic management
VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES measures for e-bikes.

type

√
√
√
Two-wheeler 2. Data acquisition and processing

The accident data for this study are from the city of Zhangjiakou in
Hebei province, China. With a total area of 36,800 km2 and a population
type

of around 4 million, Zhangjiakou is a medium-sized city where the

√
√

√
√
√

√
“motorcycle ban” policy has not been carried out, making the city a
Faults

capable study area for comparing traffic circumstances for e-bikes,

√
√

√
√
motorcycles, and bicycles.
In a traffic police department in Zhangjiakou city, traffic accident
Violations

identifications where at least one party’s means of transport was a two-

ROAD USER ATTRIBUTES

wheeler, such as an e-bike, are collected. A traffic accident identification

√
√

√
is an official record including necessary information for identifying
faults and liabilities of all parties. These identifications were conducted
Age

√
√

√
√

√
√
√
√
√

√
√
in 2020 or 2021 when e-bikes that did not meet the “New National
Standard” began to be discarded and replaced with compliant e-bikes, so
Gender

it can be assumed that both types were still used in the study area.
√
√

√
√

√
√
√

√
√
√

However, as the police accident data set did not record which type of e-
bikes had been involved in an accident, this study does not distinguish
Lamination

between the types of e-bikes.

Accident identifications are officially categorized into identifications
for minor (where summary procedures apply), general, and major ac­
√
√

cidents. Minor accidents include property damage-only accidents and

accidents with participants suffering no-treatment injuries. Including
Speed
limit

minor accidents in the data can partly compensate for the bias that the
√
√
√

general accident dataset lacks less harmful and severe configurations of

accidents (e.g., collisions with pedestrian or stationary vehicles) (Brown
et al., 2021; Schepers et al., 2017). From the 2181 accident identifica­
feature
Road

tions, 1015 identifications were screened to meet the above criteria,

√

√
√

√
√
√

including 903 minor and 112 other accident identifications. All identi­
fications were anonymized and transcribed under local legislation.
Based on the level of detail of the information contained in the
ROAD ATTRIBUTES

category

identification, the following accident elements were selected as poten­

Road

√
√

tial influential factors on the level of injury (see Table 1). Among the
environmental attributes, month (or season), time of day, and weather
are considered in most studies and are added to this study’s list of
Land
use

√
√

√
√

√
√

candidate influential factors. Road attributes include variables like road

category, road features, and speed limit. However, no road information
Weather

database has been established in the study area to correspond accident

locations with road attributes, so only the name of the accident location
√

was recorded for speculating road types. Personal attributes include the
Time

gender and age of both parties, as well as violations and faults of the e-
SITUATIONAL
ATTRIBUTES

√
√

bike party. The vehicle attribute is mainly about the vehicle type, as
Primary elements of concern for two-wheeler accident analysis.

vehicle information such as mechanical failure can hardly appear in the

Month

accident identification. Due to data source limitations, the candidate

√

√
√

influential factors are preferred towards personal and vehicle attributes.

However, fortunately, measures for road users are one of the most
frequent directions in the two-wheeler safety toolbox (WHO, 2017a),
encouraging discussions on personal and vehicle attributes.
CONFIGURATION

For records in which both parties were two-wheelers, the regression

model in this study does not calculate both parties as dependent vari­
ACCIDENT

ables. Thus, each record that included pairwise parties was replicated
into two symmetrical cases, following Chang et al. (2022). This repli­
√
√
√

√
√

√
√

cation process resulted in 1090 cases, of which 970 were minor, and 120
were other accidents.
Kumar & Toshniwal, 2017

Panwinkler & Holz-Rau,

Atalar & Thomas, 2019

Once extracted from the raw data, the cases were processed to build a
Montella et al., 2012

Ziakopoulos, 2018

Waseem et al., 2019

regression model. The ordinal environmental variables (such as time)

Santos et al., 2021
Chang et al., 2022
Dubos et al., 2016

Wang et al., 2018

F. Hu et al., 2014

A. Theofilatos &

Guo et al., 2019

were sectioned as categorical variables in this study by referring to the

literature in Table 1. The road type variable was inferred from the ve­
This study

hicles’ travel direction and the name of the accident location. It was
2021
Table 1

classified into three types: road section, intersection, and entrance/exit.

The accident configuration was inferred based on information such as

3
Q. Qian and J. Shi Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189

vehicles’ travel direction using the DaCoTA classification (Morris et al., Table 2
2018). Some classifications were combined or split based on the char­ Descriptive statistics of candidate influential factors.
acteristics of e-bike accidents, resulting in seven categories (see Table 2 Vehicle type Motorcycle E-bike Bicycle
for details).
Variable Cases % Cases % Cases %
In the personal attributes, the age variable was divided into four
categories: under 18 years, 18–40 years, 40–60 years, and over 60 years, ACCIDENT
CONFIGURATION
according to the general age requirement for motor vehicle permit Turning Off Accident 30 25.2% 247 28.3% 27 27.6%
driving. The rider’s violations are inferred from the description of the Turning In / Crossing 22 18.5% 149 17.1% 14 14.3%
accident and the text of the regulation violated. Among the e-bike vio­ Accident (Opponent
lations, two typical e-bike riding violations, namely “riding along the yield)
Pedestrian Accident 9 7.6% 44 5.0% 2 2.0%
wrong traffic direction” and “not riding in the prescribed lane,” were
Stationary Vehicle 9 7.6% 73 8.4% 8 8.2%
selected as candidate variables in this study. Although “not wearing a Accident (except
helmet” and “running a red light” are typical violations, they were not Vehicle Door with
included as candidate variables for this study since a limited number of Vehicle)
identifications have effectively recorded them. Longitudinal Traffic 32 26.9% 266 30.5% 36 36.7%
Accident
For other two-wheelers, accident data with the corresponding vari­ Vehicle Door with 2 1.7% 67 7.7% 8 8.2%
ables were also collected and processed for regression analysis, with the Vehicle
additional inclusion of the violation “driving without a license” among Turning In / Crossing 15 12.6% 27 3.1% 3 3.1%
the candidate influential factors for motorcycles (the reason for this Accident (Rider yield)
ENVIRONMENTAL
addition is described separately in the discussion in Chapter 4).
ATTRIBUTES
Weather
3. Results and analyses Clear 106 89.1% 750 85.9% 88 89.8%
Overcast 7 5.9% 78 8.9% 8 8.2%
Inclement 6 5.0% 45 5.2% 2 2.0%
3.1. Descriptive statistical analysis
Time
6:00–9:59 35 29.4% 201 23.0% 22 22.4%
Firstly, the number of accidents involving e-bikes was analyzed with 10:00–12:59 18 15.1% 185 21.2% 24 24.5%
descriptive statistics. Due to the lack of traffic volume statistics and non- 13:00–15:59 22 18.5% 178 20.4% 15 15.3%
motorized vehicle ownership data, it was impossible to compare acci­ 16:00–18:59 18 15.1% 175 20.0% 22 22.4%
19:00–21:59 18 15.1% 109 12.5% 13 13.3%
dent rates by mode of transport in this study. Thus, only the number of
22:00–5:59 8 6.7% 25 2.9% 2 2.0%
accidents involving e-bikes was analyzed, as shown in Fig. 1. All types of ROAD ATTRIBUTES
minor accidents are frequent from August to October, with the propor­ Road type
tion of e-bike-involved accidents remaining at around 40% in these Road section 42 35.3% 344 39.4% 45 45.9%
Intersection of roads 34 28.6% 303 34.7% 30 30.6%
months.
Intersection of road and 43 36.1% 226 25.9% 23 23.5%
Considering e-bike-involved accidents, the highest incidence of property
minor accidents throughout the year is from June to November, while PERSONAL
the proportion of accidents involving e-bikes decreased slightly from ATTRIBUTES
January to March due to a reduction in the number of accidents due to Rider’s gender
Male 108 90.8% 513 58.8% 54 55.1%
weather conditions. June is the month with the highest proportion of e-
Female 11 9.2% 360 41.2% 44 44.9%
bike-involved accidents, indicating a time gap between the high inci­ Rider’s age
dence of accidents involving e-bikes and that involving other accidents. Under 18 4 3.4% 38 4.4% 17 17.3%
Accordingly, local campaigns on diminishing e-bike accidents should 18–40 47 39.5% 397 45.5% 18 18.4%
40–60 54 45.4% 297 34.0% 30 30.6%
focus on June as well, in addition to August to September when the high
Over 60 14 11.8% 141 16.2% 33 33.7%
incidence of accidents takes place. Rider’s passenger
Although Zhangjiakou does not ban motorcycles from being licensed count
or allowed on the road, the number of e-bike accidents (873, see Table 2) 0 102 85.7% 757 86.7% 96 98.0%
was much higher than that of motorcycles (1 1 9) and bicycles (98). 1 15 12.6% 108 12.4% 2 2.0%
2 2 1.7% 8 0.9% 0 0.0%
However, this result alone does not mean that e-bikes are more
Rider’s fault
dangerous than the other types of two-wheelers. Zhangjiakou is located Not at fault 41 34.5% 442 50.6% 63 64.3%
in northern China, where winter temperatures are usually below 0 ◦ C. Partially at fault 46 38.7% 217 24.9% 23 23.5%
Residents favor vehicles with enclosed cabs, so motorcycles are still a At fault 32 26.9% 214 24.5% 12 12.2%
minority on the roads despite no restrictions on motorcycles in Rider’s violation
behavior
Zhangjiakou. Drove in the inversed 2 1.7% 83 9.5% 5 5.1%
Zhangjiakou officially implemented a registration policy for e-bikes direction
on May 1, 2022, and by June 30, a total of 194,570 motorcycles had Drove in the 8 6.7% 108 12.4% 6 6.1%
registered, compared to only 32,607 motorcycles registered in 2021. impermissible lane
Drove with no license 20 16.8%
Considering that the e-bike registration data is newly born and only the
VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES
new standard e-bikes are registered, the number of e-bikes will be much Opponent’s travel
higher. Thus, the assumption cannot be made that the accident rate for mode
e-bikes is higher (or lower) than that of motorcycles. E-bikes have the Heavy vehicle 5 4.2% 17 1.9% 2 2.0%
highest number of accidents among two-wheelers, probably because Four-wheeler 73 61.3% 649 74.3% 68 69.4%
Three-wheeler 2 1.7% 24 2.7% 4 4.1%
they have the largest market share of two-wheelers overall. In addition, Motorcycle & Moped 6 5.0% 19 2.2% 5 5.1%
Zhangjiakou’s urban roads often have significant gradients, making the Low-speed modes (e- 33 27.7% 164 18.8% 19 19.4%
threshold high for using human-powered bicycles, so e-bikes have a bike, bike, or
dominant share in the local two-wheeler market. pedestrian)
Total 119 873 98
Next, the injury severities of e-bike accidents were compared with
those of motorcycles (including mopeds, the same below) and bicycles,

4
Q. Qian and J. Shi Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189

Fig. 1. Accident number statistics in the study area by month (minor accidents only).

Fig. 2. Comparison among distributions of two-wheeler accident injury severities.

5
Q. Qian and J. Shi
as shown in Fig. 2. Among the three types of two-wheelers, the per­
centages of fatal and uninjured accidents are decremented according to
motorcycles, e-bikes, and bicycles. In this sample, motorcycle riders are
more than three times more likely to suffer fatal injuries in an accident
than e-bike riders, while e-bike riders are similar to bicycle riders
regarding the probability of fatality. In contrast, when comparing the
proportion of accidents with injuries above the treatment level for each
type of two-wheeler, the e-bike is the least likely of the two-wheelers to
suffer more severe injuries. Overall, the distribution of accident injury
levels for e-bike riders was closer to that of bicycle riders (but with a
relatively lower proportion of injuries) but was significantly distinct
from that of motorcycle riders.
In addition, the accident statistics for e-bikes were compared with
those for bicycles and motorcycles, as shown in Table 2. Compared to e-
bikes, motorcycle riders were predominantly male, more concentrated
in the 40–60 age group, and were at fault for a more significant pro­
portion of accidents. Motorcycle accidents were more frequently found
at night and in the morning and less frequently on road sections or
longitudinal configurations. Motorcycles had a smaller proportion of
collisions with four-wheeled vehicles in contrast to a greater proportion
with lighter modes of transport than themselves, including e-bikes, bi­
cycles, and pedestrians.
On the other hand, bicycle riders are more concentrated in the under-
18 and over-60 age groups (usually incapable of applying for driving
licenses), usually do not carry other passengers, and are more likely to
have no fault in accidents. Bicycle accidents are less likely to occur in
bad weather and more likely to occur on road sections.
3.2. Comparison of factors influencing accidental injuries
In order to investigate what leads to differences in the accident injury
severities between e-bikes, motorcycles, and bicycles, various accident
elements (i.e., influential factors) were used as independent variables to
analyze and compare the degree of influence of each type of accident
element on the accident injuries of the three types of two-wheelers.
In an accident, the injury severity of a two-wheeler rider, especially
an e-bike rider, can be classified as no injury, no treatment injury,
treatment injury, severe injury, and fatal injury, according to the in­
formation provided in the records. Notably, the severe injury level
means that the rider has confronted a high risk of reaching a critical
condition, usually with a high-dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care
unit (ICU) involved. Based on the ordered variable nature of accident
injury levels, this study used ordered regression to compare the factors
influencing injury levels. Although polynomial regression has also been
used to analyze the factors influencing injury severity (Abrari Vajari
et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2019), polynomial regression requires resolving
more parameters and loses the nature of the ordered dependent variable
(Panwinkler & Holz-Rau, 2021).
The choice among ordered regression methods, including Logistic
regression and Probit regression, is related to the distribution of the
dependent variable. The ordered Probit regression method was chosen
for this study since the distribution of the dependent variable is close to a
normal distribution (see Table 2). The ordered Probit regression can also
avoid the solution difficulties in the Logistic regression process (Garrido
et al., 2014; Panwinkler & Holz-Rau, 2021).
The original ordered Probit regression, like binomial Probit regres­
sion, assumes that only one set of coefficients, β, is fixed for different
classifications in the regression. The Generalized Ordered Probit
regression, however, relaxed this assumption so that different sets of
coefficients βj are used for calculating probabilities between different
levels. The following functions are assumed:
( )
ln
Pr(Y ≤ j|X)
= θj − XT βj (j = 1, 2, ⋯, k − 1 with k ≥ 2) (1)
1 − Pr(Y ≤ j|X)
where Y is the observed value of the ordinal dependent variable, j is the
6
Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189
ordinal number, and θj is the threshold value corresponding to the
separation. For the traditional ordered Probit regression, β1 = β2 = β3 .
Pr(Y ≤ j|X) is the probability that Y ≤ j given the value of independent
variable X. In this study, the numbers of injury severity classes k = 4 (see
Table 2, where HD/ICU-involved injuries and fatal injuries are com­
bined into one classification due to the small sample size) are separated
by the ordinal values j = 1,2,3. For the traditional ordered model, the
fitted value Z of the ordinal dependent variable is determined by the
following equation:
Z = XT β + ε (2)
where ε is the random error introduced by the ordered Probit regression
model to accommodate discrete errors in discrete choice models and
other possible random errors (such as those arising when individuals
estimate utility). In the ordered Probit regression model, ε satisfies a
normal distribution (McCullagh, 2005). The predictive value Y is
determined by the following mapping:
⎧
⎨ 1ifZ ≤ θ1
Y = jif θj− 1 < Z ≤ θj (3)
⎩
kif θk− 1 < Z
From the assumptions above, the coefficient β and the threshold θj
can be estimated using regression methods. The Generalized Ordered
Probit model follows similar rules.
In this study, both traditional and generalized ordered Probit models
were used to estimate how the factors influence accidental injuries. The
first traditional ordered Probit model included all independent variables
together, referring to Santos et al. (2021), to explore the potential fac­
tors that affect two-wheeler riders’ injury severity. The sub-models were
conducted for motorcycles (and mopeds), e-bikes, and bicycles, to
obtain the results of fitting the parameters for each of the three kinds of
two-wheelers. The second Generalized Ordered Probit model was used
to confirm and further explain the main findings in the first model,
excluding insignificant variables in the first model and including the
three kinds of two-wheelers in one model. The Generalized Ordered
Probit model has more parameters due to relaxed assumptions, but it is
more sensitive to heterogeneous effects and performs better (Bhowmik
et al., 2019). It is also a pooled model, first adopted by Bhowmik et al.
(2019, 2021) where it showed a more significance on mixed cases than
separate models. Dummy variables were created in both models for
calculating categorical variables.
The first traditional ordered Probit regression analysis was con­
ducted using SPSS statistical software. The results of the first model are
shown in Table 3. For a better comparison of the coefficients in the three
sub-models, the threshold scale was adjusted under the recommendation
of Panwinkler and Holz-Rau (2021) so that θ1 = 0, i.e., the threshold
between no injury and no-treatment injury was 0. It was found that θ3, i.
e., the threshold between treatment injury and above-severe injury, was
significantly lower for motorcycle accidents than for e-bike and bicycle
accidents, indicating that the differentiation between treatment injury
was more distinct from above-severe injury for motorcycle accidents.
The McFadden pseudo-R2 values for all three models were above 0.2,
indicating an acceptable fit (McFadden, 1977). The sub-models also
passed the parallelism test, which assumes that the same set of inde­
pendent variable coefficients β can be used for different ordinal
numbers. The test demonstrated the suitability of the data for an ordered
logit analysis.
Of the elements, the most significant impact was on accident con­
figurations and the opponent’s travel mode, followed by the rider’s age,
whether or not the rider was carrying passengers, and accident liability.
Among the accident configurations, the turning-off type that did not
require either party to yield caused significantly heavier accident in­
juries for all two-wheelers and had the greatest impact on motorcycle
riders. Both e-bike and bicycle riders suffered significantly more severe
injuries in longitudinal accidents and collisions with vehicle doors,
Q. Qian and J. Shi Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189

Table 3
Results of ordered Probit regression.
Vehicle type Motorcycle E-bike Bicycle

Variable β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.

Thresholds
No treatment injury θ1 0 0.000*** 0 0.000*** 0 0.001**
Treatment injury θ2 1.544 0.014* 2.727 0.007** 2.841 0.015*
HDU/ICU involved or fatal injury θ3 3.017 0.020* 3.387 0.015* 3.452 0.026*
ACCIDENT CONFIGURATION
Turning Off Accident 0.980 0.042** 0.494 0.004*** 1.341 0.010***
Turning In / Crossing Accident (Opponent yield) 0.945 0.069* 0.316 0.118 1.020 0.119
a
Pedestrian Accident and Stationary Vehicle Accident (except Vehicle Door with Vehicle)
Longitudinal Traffic Accident 0.502 0.258 0.458 0.007*** 0.881 0.093*
Vehicle Door with Vehicle − 0.709 0.476 0.458 0.040** 1.094 0.058*
Turning In / Crossing Accident (Rider yield) 1.010 0.077* 0.548 0.078* 0.611 0.409
ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES
Weather
Clear a
Overcast 0.176 0.722 − 0.218 0.190 − 0.869 0.074*
Inclement − 1.759 0.013** − 0.235 0.269 − 1.301 0.213
Time
6:00–9:59 0.077 0.846 − 0.166 0.305 − 0.119 0.783
10:00–12:59 − 0.168 0.715 − 0.401 0.016** − 0.548 0.199
13:00–15:59 0.755 0.075* − 0.215 0.196 0.108 0.808
16:00–18:59 − 0.071 0.882 − 0.237 0.155 − 0.619 0.139
19:00–21:59 a
22:00–5:59 − 0.945 0.136 0.014 0.964 1.625 0.081*
ROAD ATTRIBUTES
Road type
Road section a
Intersection of roads − 0.296 0.479 − 0.090 0.474 0.176 0.597
Intersection of road and property 0.039 0.916 − 0.005 0.963 0.639 0.081*
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES
Rider’s gender
Male a
Female − 0.113 0.789 0.395 0.000*** − 0.048 0.853
Rider’s age
Under 18 0.684 0.416 − 0.485 0.054* − 1.085 0.011**
18–40 0.264 0.522 − 0.687 0.000*** − 0.977 0.015**
40–60 0.457 0.231 − 0.450 0.001*** − 0.645 0.045**
Over 60 a
Rider’s passenger count
0 0.684 0.049** 0.573 0.000*** − 0.176 0.844
1 or more a
Rider’s fault
Not at fault − 0.215 0.516 − 0.183 0.206 − 0.034 0.914
Partially at fault a
At fault − 0.899 0.015** − 1.756 0.000*** − 2.102 0.000***
Rider’s violation behavior b
Drove in the inversed direction 1.016 0.261 − 0.262 0.174 − 0.582 0.369
Drove in the impermissible lane − 1.033 0.064 − 0.297 0.078* − 1.489 0.011**
Drove with no license c 1.604 0.000*** / / / /
VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES
Opponent’s travel mode
Heavy vehicle 1.436 0.026** 1.396 0.000*** 1.412 0.062*
Four-wheeler 1.399 0.000*** 0.589 0.000*** 0.778 0.041**
Three-wheeler 0.059 0.955 0.668 0.024** 2.000 0.002***
Motorcycle & Moped − 0.262 0.715 0.714 0.028** 0.048 0.939
Low-velocity modes (e-bikes, bikes and pedestrian) a
PARAMETERS FOR MODELS
− 2 × Log likelihood 287.173 141.733
1433.928
Chi square 196.128 83.630
972.184
McFadden’s pseudo R2 0.314 0.406
0.310

*: p < 0.10; **: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.01.

a
Reference category.
b
Non-exclusive categories since one rider can violate multiple rules.
c
Available only in the motorcycle model.

while motorcycle riders suffered more severe injuries in turning acci­
dents. Among the opponents’ travel modes, heavy vehicles pose the
greatest threat to all types of two-wheelers, and four-wheeled vehicles
pose a significant threat to all types of two-wheelers. However, heavy
vehicles and four-wheelers pose the most severe threat to motorcycles,
and three-wheelers pose the most serious threat to bicycles. In crashes
with motorcycles, e-bikes had significantly higher accident injury
severity, while bicycles were not significantly affected.
The results above may be related to the location of various types of
two-wheelers on the road. In China, motorcycles travel in motorized

7
Q. Qian and J. Shi Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189

lanes with other motor vehicles, while e-bikes travel in non-motorized
lanes with bicycles. In the non-motorized lane, faster and more mobi­
lized e-bikes are more accustomed to “overtaking” on the left side of the
non-motorized lane and are thus more likely to collide with motor ve­
hicles. Although electric tricycles have the characteristics of motor ve­
hicles, they are still often driving in the non-motorized lane due to their
utilization in short-haul, small-volume freight (e.g., express delivery),
thus posing a greater threat to the lighter, slower bicycle.
For all types of rider characteristics, age played distinct roles among
motorcycle, e-bike, and bicycle riders. Older e-bike or bicycle riders are
more likely to suffer more severe injuries; in contrast, older motorcycle
riders are relatively less injured (although not significantly). This
finding is intuitive as older road users are more vulnerable than younger
ones; however, motorcycle driving permits have age limits. Only e-bike
riders reflected significant gender differences, with female e-bike riders
suffering more severe injuries than males, which may be due to potential
differences in body functions and clothing between genders. Injuries
were less severe for riders of motorcycle and e-bike riders at fault in the
accident or carrying passengers, as well as for bicycle and e-bike (but
less significant) riders who did not follow the posted lanes. These results
may indicate two-wheeler riders’ improved caution (probably with a
reduced speed) when conducting these behaviors. In addition, unli­
censed motorcyclists face more severe accident risks, which is compre­
hensible regarding unlicensed motorcyclists’ inadequate knowledge of
traffic rules and safety.
For environmental attributes, e-bike riders were more injured in the

Table 4
Results of Pooled Generalized Ordered Probit Model and elasticity analyses.
No Threshold 1 No Threshold 2 Treatment Threshold 3 HDU/ICU
injury treatment injury involved or
injury fatal injury

Elasticity β Sig. Elasticity(%) β Sig. Elasticity(%) β Sig. Elasticity(%)

(%)

Thresholds θi 0.936 0.008*** 1.636 0.000*** 2.630 0.000***

ACCIDENT CONFIGURATION
Turning Off Accident − 11.6 0.623 0.000*** 6.3 0.623 0.000*** 3.4 0.623 0.000*** 1.9
Turning In / Crossing Accident – 0.317 0.095* – 0.317 0.095* – 0.317 0.095* –
(Opponent yield)
Pedestrian Accident and Stationary
Vehicle Accident (except Vehicle
Door with Vehicle) a
Longitudinal Traffic Accident − 7.2 0.366 0.034** – 0.827 0.000*** 6.3 0.628 0.025** 2.0
Vehicle Door with Vehicle − 11.8 0.634 0.007*** 6.3 0.634 0.007*** 3.5 0.634 0.007*** 2.0
Turning In / Crossing Accident − 13.2 0.720 0.003*** 6.5 0.720 0.003*** 4.2 0.720 0.003*** 2.5
(Rider yield)
Rider’s gender
Male a
Female – 0.041 0.867 – 0.041 0.867 – 0.041 0.867 –
Rider’s age
Under 18 6.7 − 0.409 0.064* – − 0.409 0.064* − 3.9 − 0.409 0.064* − 2.4
18–40 11.6 − 0.670 0.000*** − 2.7 − 0.670 0.000*** − 5.7 − 0.670 0.000*** − 3.3
40–60 6.0 − 0.370 0.004*** – − 0.370 0.004*** − 3.6 − 0.370 0.004*** − 2.3
Over 60
Rider’s fault
Not at fault – 0.180 0.232 9.0 − 0.445 0.003*** − 3.1 − 0.537 0.016** − 2.6
At fault 33.8 − 1.284 0.000*** − 31.4 − 0.217 0.544 – − 0.593 0.228 − 1.8
Rider’s violation behavior b
Drove with no license c – 0.385 0.410 − 53.5 2.202 0.000*** 52.1 0.861 0.043** –
Drove in the impermissible lane 5.1 − 0.281 0.061* – − 0.281 0.061* − 2.0 − 0.281 0.061* − 1.1
Rider’s passenger count
0 − 46.9 2.156 0.000*** 46.9 0.005 0.992 – 0.188 0.731 –
1 or more a
Opponent’s travel mode
Heavy vehicle –23.5 1.257 0.000*** – 1.257 0.000*** 15.1 1.257 0.000*** 10.0
Four-wheeler − 15.2 0.738 0.000*** 13.6 0.149 0.396 – 0.313 0.252 –
Three-wheeler − 11.4 0.529 0.043** 4.1 0.529 0.043** 5.1 0.529 0.043** –
Motorcycle & Moped − 9.7 0.444 0.094* 3.9 0.444 0.094* – 0.444 0.094* –
Low-velocity modes (e-bikes, bikes and
pedestrian) a
Attributes featured in certain
two-wheelers
Motorcycle: Turning In / Crossing − 9.1 0.593 0.099* – 0.593 0.099* – 0.593 0.099* –
Accident (Opponent yield)
Motorcycle: Longitudinal Traffic 14.0 − 0.697 0.056* − 18.3 0.298 0.443 – 0.335 0.538 –
Accident
E-bike: Female rider − 20.4 0.696 0.005*** 20.4 − 0.001 0.994 – 0.414 0.199 –
Motorcycle: At fault – 0.531 0.132 – 0.531 0.132 3.6 0.531 0.132 1.6
Bicycle: 0 passengers − 19.8 1.259 0.002*** 20.3 − 0.034 0.931 – 0.235 0.647 –
Motorcycle: hit by a four-wheeled − 9.3 0.593 0.030** – 0.593 0.030** 5.8 0.593 0.030** –
vehicle

PARAMETERS FOR MODELS − 2 × Log likelihood 1217.196 Chi square 781.9 McFadden’s pseudo R2 0.391

*: p < 0.10; **: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.01.

Underlined variables are not presumed as parallel through injury levels (p < 0.10); elasticity effects with p greater than 0.10 are omitted for better focus on significant
elasticities.
a
Reference category. b Non-exclusive categories since one rider can violate multiple rules. c Available only in the motorcycle model.

8
Q. Qian and J. Shi
evening (19:00–21:59), possibly due to frequently occupied parking for
dinners in non-motorized lanes, making the non-motorized lanes less
suitable for traffic in the evening. Motorcycle riders were more likely to
survive inclement weather and were more injured in the afternoon
(13:00–15:59). The results regarding the time of day are similar to that
of Waseem et al. (2019), probably stemmed from a combination of two
factors, motorcycles being accessible to free speed during off-peak hours
and motorcycle riders being relatively less alert. Bicycle riders are least
injured in cloudy weather and most injured at night (22:00–5:59),
probably because bicycles do not have active light-emitting devices. The
lack of vehicle lighting on a bicycle makes it less likely to create glare in
cloudy weather, but the vehicle will be more difficult to be detected. The
overall effect of road type on injury severity for all types of two-wheeler
accidents was insignificant.
The second Generalized Ordered Probit model was conducted using
the gologit2 program (Williams, 2016) in Stata software. Although the
parallel regressions assumptions are no longer compulsive in the
Generalized Ordered Probit model, only those variables that cannot fit
the parallel lines (p < 0.10) are relaxed for trimmer results. Four vari­
ables were excluded for the second model due to low significance:
weather, time, road type, and rider’s driving in the inversed direction.
To confirm the distinction of e-bikes from motorcycles or bicycles,
several interaction variables were selected for the model, according to
the findings from the first model. Moreover, an elasticity analysis was
conducted for the model to quantify the effect of each variable on the
injury severities (Kabli et al., 2023).
The results of the Generalized Ordered Probit model with its elas­
ticity analysis are shown in Table 4. The McFadden’s pseudo R2 is 0.392,
showing a better performance than the first model considering all the
sub-models. All the variables remained significant except rider’s gender;
however, female e-bike riders showed a high tendency to suffer injuries
though without the need for treatment.
The first finding confirmed the difference in impacts on the three
kinds of two-wheelers: motorcycle riders suffer more if hit by another
vehicle in turning-in accidents but are more likely to survive uninjured
in longitudinal accidents. Similar findings can be extracted from
Bhowmik et al. (2021). The perspective of relative velocity may help
interpret this result. Longitudinal accidents are usually rear-ended,
where the relative velocity between motorcycles and cars is lower
than that between (e-)bikes and cars. Thus, motorcycles suffer less
impact, and their riders have more control over the two-wheelers. The
situation is on the contrary if the two-wheelers are hit by another vehicle
in turning-in accidents, as the collisions are often angular or even head-
on.
The next finding is that motorcycle riders are more injured in acci­
dents with four-wheeled vehicles. Relative velocity does not dominate in
these findings unless inspecting further in accident configurations;
however, the locations of different two-wheelers still make sense, as
collisions between motorcycles and cars usually happen in the
motorway where car drivers are less cautious. Additionally, bicycle
riders “benefit” less from carrying passengers. This may be due to
limited effects on velocity and riders’ behaviors from the carriage of one
passenger (or two). In other words, those who carry passengers with
bikes will not ride much faster without passengers. On the other hand,
motorcycle riders generally do not “benefit” less from their faults in
accidents than other two-wheelers.
The elasticity analyses show three most extensive effects: (a)
motorcycle riders who drove with no license needed much more treat­
ment, (b) riders carrying no passengers with them often get some injury,
and (c) riders who are fully at fault in the accidents often leave with no
injury.
3.3. Analysis of the contribution of accident elements
While comparing the magnitude of the effect of the independent
variables on the dependent variable, the Probit regression model itself
9
Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189
cannot compare the contribution (i.e., importance) of the independent
variables as well. The contribution of an independent variable is about
how much the variable contributes to the regression accuracy, usually
expressed as an improvement value in the R2 value. It should be noted
that although there are coefficients of the independent variables on the
dependent variable, the magnitude of the coefficient does not corre­
spond to the magnitude of the contribution due to the inevitable pres­
ence of covariance among the respective variables, although the indices
of covariance did not reach the thresholds of interfering the validity of
the Probit regression in this study (Schoppach et al., 2021). Although the
contributions of variables cannot be directly calculated due to the
pseudo-R2 nonlinearity of the Probit regression model, they can be ob­
tained through other regression or classification methods, such as the
LMG method (Wang et al., 2021a), the classification tree method
(Montella et al., 2020), and the Lasso regression method (Gallego et al.,
2021). In this study, classification trees were used as a supplement to the
Probit regression method to determine the contribution of each accident
element to the dependent variable, i.e., the degree of accident injury.
The classification tree method takes the form of a tree of judgments,
simulating humans’ abstract judgment process. The advantage of this
method is that there is no need to transform categorical variables into
ordered variables or to set dummy variables. The classification tree has
applications in accident data classification (Kumar & Toshniwal, 2017;
Tavakoli Kashani et al., 2014). Classification tree as a machine learning
method has the optimization goal of separating different cases according
to the dependent variable of interest as much as possible. The separa­
tions are chosen according to the independent variable classification
index, usually the purity of the dependent variable in each class. The
commonly used algorithms include ID3 and CART. The CART algorithm,
for example, measures the classification purity based on the Gini
coefficient:
∑
Gini(t) = 1 − p(j|t)2 (4)
j
where t is the branch examined by the coefficient and p(j|t)2 is the
probability of occurrence of the dependent variable classification j in
branch t. The iterative process measures the gain in purity improvement
of each classification granularity on the initial value:
∑ |t|
Contribution(P) = ( Gini(t) ) − Gini(T)
|T|
t∈P
where T is the parent node of branch t and P is the strategy of
dividing T, expressed as a set of t. In a classification tree, the contribu­
tion of a variable is the weighted sum of the purity-boosting gains it may
provide throughout all the possible trees. Referring to the studies of
Montella et al. (Montella et al., 2012; Montella et al., 2020), the
contribution was eventually normalized for analysis by setting the
relative contribution of the most contributive independent variable to
100%.
In this study, classification tree analyses were performed for the e-
bikes, motorcycles, and bicycles, respectively, using SPSS Statistics
software configuring the algorithm as CART.
The normalized contribution ranking results of various accident at­
tributions to the accident injury severity for the three two-wheelers are
shown in Fig. 3. A comparison of the three bar charts shows that the top
two variables in terms of contribution are the rider’s fault and the op­
ponent’s travel mode, regardless of the type of two-wheeler. From the
analysis in the previous section, we already know that the rider of each
type of two-wheeler is less injured when fully at fault in the accident. In
other words, whenever the opponent is at fault, regardless of the extent,
it will cause more severe injuries to the two-wheeler rider. Regard that
the contribution of the other party’s mode of transportation in the dif­
ference in the injury severity, it can be concluded that two-wheelers are
more vulnerable to the opponent’s aberrant driving behavior and more
difficult to survive in a collision with a larger vehicle. The above
Q. Qian and J. Shi
Fig. 3. Comparison of the normalized contribution of independent variables in the three transport modes. Note: Motorcycle, e-bike, and bicycle samples were
normalized separately, and the category of independent variables with the highest contribution was set to 100% relative contribution.
conclusion implies that the traffic safety of two-wheelers relies on the
safe driving awareness of other vehicles, especially three- and four-
wheelers.
The contribution ranking patterns for e-bikes differ from motorcycles
or bicycles. For motorcycles and bicycles, time is next to the accident
configuration in contribution, ranking third and fourth. However, time
is only the seventh contributor to the accident injury severity of e-bikes.
Hence, accident configuration is the more contributive influential factor
than time, given the ranks in all three types of two-wheelers. From the
previous section, it is clear that accident configuration influences injury
severity of e-bikes similar to bikes, while significantly different from
motorcycles. In addition, the presence or absence of a passenger, rider’s
age, and road type also contributed to accident injuries in all types of
two-wheelers. Notably, the contribution of unlicensed driving to the
motorcycle accident injury severity is relatively high.
Considering that the absolute coefficient value of unlicensed driving
in the ordered Probit regression is higher than those of rider re­
sponsibility, opposing travel mode, and accident type, the effect of un­
licensed driving on the rider’s accident injury is not negligible. On the
other hand, time and road type are omitted in the pooled model as they
provide a limited contribution to e-bike accident severity compared to
their degree of freedom in the models.
4. Discussion
The comprehensive accident injury severity comparison and influ­
ence factor coefficient comparison of e-bikes with motorcycles and bi­
cycles showed that the accident injury results and effecting patterns of e-
bikes were significantly different from motorcycles and bicycles. How­
ever, the accident injury severity distribution of e-bike riders was closer
to that of bicycle riders. The above analyses of accident attributions and
10
Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189
their contributions to the accident injury severity revealed that e-bikes
and bikes were more alike when influenced by accident configurations,
riders’ faults, and opponents’ travel modes (especially four-wheeled
vehicles). On the other hand, the three most contributive factors were
rider’s fault, accident configuration, and opponent’s travel mode. E-
bikes have more in common with bicycles regarding affected patterns on
these three factors and more differences with motorcycles. In summary,
e-bikes are closer to bicycles regarding accident injury severity and its
influential factors; their common points appear more in the attributes of
the riders and the modes of transportation.
4.1. Comparison of accident injury severity of various types of two-
wheelers
The main objective of this study is to compare e-bikes with motor­
cycles and bicycles and investigate the differences in their characteris­
tics. The comparison involves the accident severity and the influential
factors. Comparing the accident injury severities of the three kinds of
two-wheelers revealed that the accident injury severities of e-bikes were
slightly (although not significantly) lower than those of conventional
bicycles. This result differs from the results obtained from the clinical
data by Zmora et al. (2019) and Cha Sow King et al. (2020). However,
the referred studies differ from the current study due to the data sources.
The dataset of this study contains a large number of minor accidents in
which two-wheeler riders suffered only no-treatment injuries or no in­
juries; thus, the distribution of injury levels for e-bikes versus bikes
differs from clinical data studies. Second, the e-bikes of interest in this
study are the electric-driven type, unlike the referred studies. The lower
injury severities among e-bike riders may be that e-bikes are heavier and
with skateboard-style footrests, making their riders’ lower bodies less
likely to be first impacted in a lateral collision than a bicycle.
Q. Qian and J. Shi
On the other hand, e-bikes are also associated with lower injury
severity in accidents than motorcycles. This result seems self-evident
because motorcycles are faster and have higher mobility. However,
due to these properties of motorcycles, traffic safety regulations require
riders to have more riding and safety skills than bicycle riders, and
traffic police will require motorcycle riders to obtain a driver’s license
and apply for a driving license. So are motorcycle riders who have
passed the driving test to obtain a license as safe as other two-wheeler
riders? By dividing motorcyclists into licensed and unlicensed motor­
cyclists and calculating the accident injury distribution separately, it
was found that the accident fatality rate of licensed motorcyclists is
2.0%, still much higher than e-bike riders (1.3%, see Fig. 2) and cyclists
(1.0%). The proportion of injuries above hospital admission for licensed
motorcyclists is 18.2%, also higher than for e-bike riders (6.4%) and
cyclists (10.1%). Thus, motorcycle riders are still at a higher risk of
serious injury, whether that risk comes from the motorcycle’s perfor­
mance, like faster speed, or the motorcycle’s environment, namely the
motorized lane. These attributions can be avoided by “replacing” a
motorcycle with an e-bike. For this reason, restrictions on the perfor­
mance (especially speed) of e-bikes are necessary.
Overall, the accident injury severity of e-bikes was closer to, if not
inferior to, that of bicycles. This finding is similar to Sporri et al. (2021),
which compared medical data from e-bikes with motorcycles and bi­
cycle riders. This conclusion implies that, although usually used in an
electric-driven manner, e-bikes with the limitations set by the New
National Standard do not pose as great a risk of accidental injury to
riders as motorcycles. Therefore, it is generally feasible to regulate e-
bikes as non-motorized vehicles like bicycles. The study does not sup­
port measures to restrict e-bike use based on e-bike accident injury
dynamics.
4.2. Comparison of influential factors of accidental injuries
Reducing accidents and injuries on e-bikes is still one of the goals of
e-bike management. So it is essential to compare the factors influencing
accidents and injuries on e-bikes and the other two types of two-
wheelers to determine what management measures are needed in
addition to “non-motorized traffic management.” Among the factors
influencing injuries on e-bikes and the other two types of two-wheelers,
rider’s fault, mode of traffic, and accident configuration contributed
more to the injury severity. Regardless of the vehicle type, two-wheeler
riders encountered milder injuries in the case of fully at-fault in the
accident, while the highest severity was in the case where both parties
were at fault (see Table 3). This finding is similar to Chang et al. (2022),
which implied that the opponent’s fault (especially the motor vehicle)
largely determines whether the rider will be injured or not. Whereas
heavy vehicles unexpectedly lead to the most severe injuries for mo­
torcycles and e-bikes among the opponent’s travel modes, tricycles pose
the greatest threat to bicycles.
On the other hand, the findings for heavy vehicles are generally the
same as previous literature (Chang et al., 2022; F. Hu et al., 2014;
Athanasios Theofilatos & Ziakopoulos, 2018). The particular case of
bicycles may be because citizens’ traveling range by bicycles overlaps
less with the activity range of heavy vehicles (heavy vehicles, especially
trucks, tend to be in the periphery of cities). Tricycle drivers tend to
consider their vehicles as non-motorized and travel in non-motorized
lanes (although electric tricycles are generally judged as motorized ve­
hicles after the accident). Motorized vehicles should generally yield to
vulnerable road users following existing regulations. While considering
the situation of bicycles (see Section 3.2), regulations should also be
implemented for tricycles, especially those types that should be regar­
ded as motorized vehicles.
Among various accident configurations, the configuration that most
significantly influences the accident injury severity of e-bike riders are
longitudinal accidents, collisions with vehicle doors, and turning-in
accidents in which neither party is required to yield. Longitudinal
11
Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189
accidents include the most dangerous type of frontal collisions (Montella
et al., 2020). In the case of an e-bike collision with an opened door, also
known as an “open-door ambush,” the two-wheeler may face a more
sudden threat, which can hardly avoid due to the raised curb on the right
or the moving motor vehicle on the left. In cases where neither party is
required to yield, both parties lack a sense of mutual care and are less
likely to take the maneuver of avoiding or slowing down, thus poten­
tially causing more severe injuries. Cyclists also suffer significantly more
serious injuries in these three accident configurations. Inspired by these
findings, accident prevention campaigns can be conducted for non-
motorized vehicles regarding the above accident configurations. Mo­
torcyclists’ safety issues in intersections should also be noticed.
Among the personal attributes of e-bike riders, age and gender
significantly influenced injury severities sustained by riders in accidents.
Riders over 60 years of age were more severely injured, while there was
no significant difference in the injury severities between other age
groups. The findings about the age effect are similar to the clinical data
studies (de Guerre et al., 2020). As for the gender effect, only female e-
bike riders were more likely to suffer more severe injuries compared to
male riders, a result similar to F. Hu et al. (2014) and de Lapparent
(2006) but contrary to some other two-wheeler studies (Guo et al., 2019;
Panwinkler & Holz-Rau, 2021). This result may be due to the inclusion
of minor accident data resulting in the inclusion of a “no injury” level in
the accident injury severity variable, implying that female riders were
less likely to be completely uninjured. Previous research has shown that
both women and older adults rate e-bikes as less safe (Haustein & Møller,
2016). Women have more difficulty countering the weight of a two-
wheeler and are, therefore, more likely to lose their balance and fall
to the ground after a collision, causing minor injuries such as bruises.
Although minor injuries mean that the injured person does not need to
be attended to hospital, he or she still suffers losses and temporary
inconvenience. Accordingly, women may wear personal safety equip­
ment (e.g., helmets, long-sleeved clothing) more commonly to avoid
direct injuries from conditions such as falling to the ground or getting
bruised in accidents.
In addition, the presence of passengers also resulted in lower injury
severities for e-bike riders, a finding similar to that of Waseem et al.
(2019). Due to the power limitations of e-bikes and the belief in ensuring
passenger safety, e-bike riders will maintain a lower speed, thus
avoiding being involved in serious accidents which result from excessive
speed. Therefore, regulatory measures prohibiting e-bikes from carrying
passengers for safety issues are still open to discussion.
4.3. Countermeasures for accident reduction
One of the main findings of this study is that the accident severity of
e-bikes is not significantly higher than that of conventional bikes. From
the “speed causes casualty” perspective of motorized two-wheelers
(Schneider & Savolainen, 2011; Xin et al., 2017), the New National
Standard for e-bikes positively affects road safety through the speed
limit enforcement of e-bikes. Findings about distinctions between mo­
torcycles and “non-motorized vehicles” in how the accident configura­
tions and the counterpart’s travel modes affect injury severities also
indicate similarities between e-bikes and bicycles. However, e-bikes
should still not be confused with bicycles. First, the data in this study
show that driving without a license dramatically affects the severity of
motorcycle accidents with a coefficient that exceeds even collisions with
heavy vehicles, implying that traffic safety knowledge and skills play a
crucial role in preventing severe motorcycle accidents. Since e-bikes are
non-human-powered vehicles like motorcycles, riders need to acquire
traffic safety knowledge and skills for daily road use. However, the
actual situation of e-bike riders is worrisome (Wang et al., 2021b). To
this end, the safety knowledge and skills of e-bike riders can be enhanced
through education. The registration of rider information completed
during the examination procedure can also help to carry out subsequent
traffic safety education tools, such as reinforcement education after a
Q. Qian and J. Shi
traffic violation. Such requirements for e-bikes already appear in similar
accident prevention toolkits (WHO, 2017a) and have been adopted by
countries such as Germany (Panwinkler & Holz-Rau, 2021).
Second, even though e-bikes are already subject to speed limits,
residents’ perceptions of the convenience and speed of e-bikes (Ragot-
Court et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021b) are still difficult to change. Since
the maximum designed speed of e-bikes is only achieved by cutting off
the motor output when the speed limit is reached, traffic police are still
under pressure to investigate and penalize e-bike riders who “jailbreak”
the maximum design speed limit. Once the speed limit is broken, e-bike
riders will face the same traffic safety risks as motorcycle riders. For this
reason, consideration needs to be given to ensuring that speed limits are
in effect through annual inspections and other means of inspection. At
the same time, mandatory safety helmets for e-bike riders (and passen­
gers) could be promoted as a “double” protection measure before speed
limits are ensured in effect. Helmets are effective in preventing injuries
from accidents on all types of two-wheelers (WHO, 2017a, 2017b). On
the other hand, other protective equipment may not be necessary for e-
bikes (WHO, 2017b), but for e-bikes at risk of rider falls, exposure of the
upper limbs may cause unnecessary personal injury (especially for fe­
male riders). So, clothing such as sun protection sleeves may be pro­
moted to reduce the probability of injury.
Besides, e-bikes are similar to bicycles in that they are exposed to
risks caused by the inappropriate driving behavior of other road users.
Therefore, in addition to riders and vehicles, there is a need to ensure
that road design and traffic rules ensure that other road traffic partici­
pants can exercise caution and emergency avoidance of e-bikes and bi­
cycles. First, to reduce injuries to the non-motorized party of a
longitudinal accident, traffic calming (controlling all vehicles to a speed
of 30 km/h or less) in mixed traffic lanes is an effective measure to
protect non-motorized vehicles (WHO, 2017b). Ensuring right-of-way
for e-bikes (and bicycles) at intersections through road alignment and
signal configurations also helps to bring the attention of motor vehicle
drivers and reduce the number of conflict situations where neither party
needs to yield, thus reducing the occurrence of such accidents. Second,
in situations where public transportation cannot yet accommodate all
the travel needs of elderly citizens, the use of non-motorized lanes to
provide a friendly traffic environment for elderly riders may also be an
effective means of reducing serious injuries and even fatalities. Sharing
traffic with the elderly means not only focusing on educating elderly
riders but also taking into account the cognitive and kinesis character­
istics of elderly citizens. Elderly-friendly traffic will be confirmed by re-
designing non-motorized lanes and even intersections, creating space for
slower-responding older riders in roadway segments, and using right-of-
way rules at intersections to provide continuous protection for elderly
citizens.
5. Conclusion
Focused on two-wheeler accidents, this study firstly used a police
accident dataset containing minor accidents so that the dependent var­
iable of accident injury severity included the no-injury level. Secondly,
the accident injury severity of e-bikes was compared with motorcycles
and bicycles. Thirdly, ordered Probit regressions, including typical
influential factors of accidents, were conducted for each vehicle type
separately. Through the regressions, the significance and coefficients of
influential factors of each vehicle type were compared, obtaining simi­
larities and differences between the accident of e-bikes and those of
other two-wheelers. Concurrently, the contribution of each influence
factor of accidents of each two-wheeler was analyzed using a classifi­
cation tree approach as a functional complement to the ordered Probit
regression model to indicate the attributes that needed focused atten­
tion. The results were finally synthesized to suggest management mea­
sures for e-bikes.
In this study, two ordered Probit regression models based on a police
accident dataset containing minor accident data were developed,
12
Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189
combined with a classification tree approach, to compare the accident
injury severity and influential factors of e-bikes with motorcycles and
bicycles. The comparison between various types of two-wheelers
showed that the accident injury severity of e-bikes was not signifi­
cantly higher than that of conventional bicycles. The rider’s fault in the
accident, the opponent’s travel mode, and the type of accident were the
accident attributes that contributed more to the accident injury severity,
and the significance of e-bikes on these accident attributes was closer to
that of bicycles than motorcycles. Based on the analysis results and a
comparison with results from previous literature, countermeasures are
recommended to reduce e-bike accidents.
This study provided three-fold contributions: (1) comparing the ac­
cident injury severities between e-bikes, motorcycles, and bicycles,
resulting that the accident injury profile of e-bikes is closer to that of
bicycles; (2) comparing the significance of accident factors on injury
severities between the two-wheeler types, in which the similar patterns
of factors between e-bike accidents and bicycle accidents, in particular,
the similarity of the influence from “accident configuration,” “accident
responsibility,” and “collision with a four-wheeled vehicle” were found;
(3) the classification tree method was used to estimate the contribution
of accident attributes in the accident injury severity of each two-wheeler
type to make up for the shortcomings of the Probit regression method.
This study has some limitations as a comparative analysis study of
accident data for two-wheelers. First, since the data was derived from
paper-based sources and the accident determination text was not fully
structured, fewer variables could be extracted from the accident text. For
example, although wearing a helmet is required for motorcycle riders,
police often neglect to record helmet conditions in accident de­
terminations because other more apparent faults can be used. This
recording habit made it impossible to analyze the effect of helmet wear
on accident injury severity in this study. Another example is the red light
running: although as a severe fault, it shares the same fault code with the
more minor but common fault of “failure to pay attention to surrounding
vehicles” in the police records and thus could not be extracted. Second,
since paper-based identifications can only be accessed separately for
each region, the details of the accident data records vary from one staff
member to another, making it difficult to standardize data formats
across regions. The hardness of data access resulted in the small sample
size in this study. Finally, because of technical limitations, there is a lack
of traffic volume data counted by mode of transportation to compare the
accident rates per million vehicles or kilometers for various types of two-
wheelers. Further research could obtain data from cities with similar
conditions, which have minor accidents in the unified digital database,
for a more detailed analysis. Furthermore, cases of near-miss accidents
reported by respondents can be included.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Qian Qian: Methodology, Software, Validation, Resources, Formal
analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Jing Shi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
Q. Qian and J. Shi
of China (No. 51578319).
References
Abrari Vajari, M., Aghabayk, K., Sadeghian, M., Shiwakoti, N., 2020. A multinomial logit
model of motorcycle crash severity at Australian intersections. J. Saf. Res. 73, 17–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.02.008.
Almannaa, M.H., Ashqar, H.I., Elhenawy, M., Masoud, M., Rakotonirainy, A., Rakha, H.,
2020. A comparative analysis of e-scooter and e-bike usage patterns: Findings from
the City of Austin, TX. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 15 (7),
571–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1833117.
Atalar, D., Thomas, P., 2019. Powered two-wheeler crash scenario development. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 125, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.02.001.
Bhowmik, T., Yasmin, S., Eluru, N., 2019. Do we need multivariate modeling approaches
to model crash frequency by crash types? A panel mixed approach to modeling crash
frequency by crash types. Analytic Methods in Accident Research 24, 100107.
Bhowmik, T., Yasmin, S., Eluru, N., 2021. A new econometric approach for modeling
several count variables: a case study of crash frequency analysis by crash type and
severity. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 153, 172–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trb.2021.09.008.
Blaizot, S., Papon, F., Haddak, M.M., Amoros, E., 2013. Injury incidence rates of cyclists
compared to pedestrians, car occupants and powered two-wheeler riders, using a
medical registry and mobility data, Rhone County, France. Accid. Anal. Prev. 58,
35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.04.018.
Brown, L., Morris, A., Thomas, P., Ekambaram, K., Margaritis, D., Davidse, R., Usami, D.
S., Robibaro, M., Persia, L., Buttler, I., Ziakopoulos, A., Theofilatos, A., Yannis, G.,
Martin, A., Wadji, F., 2021. Investigation of accidents involving powered two
wheelers and bicycles - a European in-depth study. J. Saf. Res. 76, 135–145. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.12.015.
Cha Sow King, C., Liu, M., Patel, S., Goo, T.T., Lim, W.W., Toh, H.C., 2020. Injury
patterns associated with personal mobility devices and electric bicycles: an analysis
from an acute general hospital in Singapore. Singapore Med. J. 61 (2), 96–101.
Chang, F., Haque, M.M., Yasmin, S., Huang, H., 2022. Crash injury severity analysis of E-
Bike Riders: a random parameters generalized ordered probit model with
heterogeneity in means. Saf. Sci. 146, 105545.
de Guerre, L., Sadiqi, S., Leenen, L.P.H., Oner, C.F., van Gaalen, S.M., 2020. Injuries
related to bicycle accidents: an epidemiological study in The Netherlands. Eur. J.
Trauma Emerg. Surg. 46 (2), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-018-1033-
5.
de Lapparent, M., 2006. Empirical Bayesian analysis of accident severity for
motorcyclists in large French urban areas. Accid. Anal. Prev. 38 (2), 260–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.09.001.
Fairley, P., 2005. China’s cyclists take charge: electric bicycles are selling by the millions
despite efforts to ban them. IEEE Spectr. 42 (6), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/
mspec.2005.1437044.
Gallego, V., Sánchez, A., Martón, I., Martorell, S., 2021. Analysis of occupational
accidents in Spain using shrinkage regression methods. Saf. Sci. 133, 105000.
Garrido, R., Bastos, A., de Almeida, A., Elvas, J.P., 2014. Prediction of road accident
severity using the ordered probit model. Transp. Res. Procedia 3, 214–223. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.107.
Gu, T., Kim, I., Currie, G., 2020. The two-wheeled renaissance in China—an empirical
review of bicycle, E-bike, and motorbike development. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 15 (4),
239–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1737277.
Guo, Y., Wu, Y., Lu, J., Zhou, J., 2019. Modeling the unobserved heterogeneity in E-bike
collision severity using full bayesian random parameters multinomial logit
regression. Sustainability 11 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072071.
Haustein, S., Møller, M., 2016. E-bike safety: Individual-level factors and incident
characteristics. J. Transp. Health 3 (3), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jth.2016.07.001.
Hu, L., Hu, X., Wang, J., Kuang, A., Hao, W., Lin, M., 2020. Casualty risk of e-bike rider
struck by passenger vehicle using China in-depth accident data. Traffic Inj. Prev. 21
(4), 283–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2020.1747614.
Hu, F., Lv, D., Zhu, J., Fang, J., 2014. Related risk factors for injury severity of e-bike and
bicycle crashes in Hefei. Traffic Inj. Prev. 15 (3), 319–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15389588.2013.817669.
Junior, S.M., Santos, S.E., Kluppel, L.E., Asprino, L., Moreira, R.W., de Moraes, M., 2012.
A comparison of motorcycle and bicycle accidents in oral and maxillofacial trauma.
J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 70 (3), 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joms.2011.03.035.
Kabli, A., Bhowmik, T., Eluru, N., 2023. Exploring the temporal variability of the factors
affecting driver injury severity by body region employing a hybrid econometric
approach. Analytic Methods in Accident Research 37, 100246.
Kumar, S., Toshniwal, D., 2017. Severity analysis of powered two wheeler traffic
accidents in Uttarakhand, India. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 9 (2) https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12544-017-0242-z.
McCullagh, P., 2005. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. Wiley.
McFadden, D., 1977. Quantitative Methods for Analyzing Travel Behaviour of
Individuals: Some Recent Developments Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers. Cowles
Foundation for Research in Economics.
Montella, A., Aria, M., D’Ambrosio, A., Mauriello, F., 2012. Analysis of powered two-
wheeler crashes in Italy by classification trees and rules discovery. Accid. Anal. Prev.
49, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.025.
Montella, A., de Ona, R., Mauriello, F., Rella Riccardi, M., Silvestro, G., 2020. A data
mining approach to investigate patterns of powered two-wheeler crashes in Spain.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 134, 105251 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.07.027.
13
Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189
Morris, A.P., Brown, L.A., Thomas, P., Davidse, R.J., Phan, V., Margaritis, D., Usami, D.,
Robibaro, M., Krupińska, A., Sicińska, K., Ziakopoulos, A., Theofilatos, A.,
Yannis, G., 2018. SAFERWHEELS study on powered two-wheeler and bicycle
accidents in the EU - Final report. EUROPEAN COMMISSION.
NBS. (2022). National Statistics. https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?
cn=C01&zb=A0S0D01&sj=2020.
Otte, D., Facius, T., 2019. Accident typology comparisons between pedelecs and
conventional bicycles. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security 12 (1), 116–135.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2019.1662530.
Panwinkler, T., Holz-Rau, C., 2021. Causes of pedelec (pedal electric cycle) single
accidents and their influence on injury severity. Accid. Anal. Prev. 154, 106082
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106082.
Penumaka, A.P., Savino, G., Baldanzini, N., Pierini, M., 2014. In-depth investigations of
PTW-car accidents caused by human errors. Saf. Sci. 68, 212–221. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssci.2014.04.004.
Ragot-Court, I., Rodon, C., Van Elslande, P., Zhuo, J., 2021. Assessing self-reported risky
behavior among two-wheeled vehicle users: an exploratory analysis comparing e-
bikers to other riders. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 13 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-
021-00508-z.
Santos, K., Dias, J.P., Amado, C., Sousa, J., Francisco, P., 2021. Risk factors associated
with the increase of injury severity of powered two wheelers road accidents victims
in Portugal. Traffic Inj. Prev. 22 (8), 646–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15389588.2021.1987421.
Schepers, P., Stipdonk, H., Methorst, R., Olivier, J., 2017. Bicycle fatalities: trends in
crashes with and without motor vehicles in The Netherlands. Transport. Res. F:
Traffic Psychol. Behav. 46, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.05.007.
Schneider, W.H., Savolainen, P.T., 2011. Comparison of Severity of Motorcyclist Injury
by Crash Types. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2265 (1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.3141/2265-08.
Schoppach, R., Chun, K.P., He, Q., Fabiani, G., Klaus, J., 2021. Species-specific control of
DBH and landscape characteristics on tree-to-tree variability of sap velocity. Agric.
For. Meteorol. 307, 108533.
Shao, Q., Zhang, W., Cao, X.(., Yang, J., 2022. Nonlinear and interaction effects of land
use and motorcycles/E-bikes on car ownership. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
102, 103115.
Sporri, E., Halvachizadeh, S., Gamble, J.G., Berk, T., Allemann, F., Pape, H.C., Rauer, T.,
2021. Comparison of injury patterns between electric bicycle, bicycle and
motorcycle accidents. J. Clin. Med. 10 (15) https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153359.
Tavakoli Kashani, A., Rabieyan, R., Besharati, M.M., 2014. A data mining approach to
investigate the factors influencing the crash severity of motorcycle pillion
passengers. J. Saf. Res. 51, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2014.09.004.
Theofilatos, A., Yannis, G., 2015. A review of powered-two-wheeler behaviour and
safety. Int. J. Inj. Contr. Saf. Promot. 22 (4), 284–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17457300.2014.908224.
Theofilatos, A., Ziakopoulos, A., 2018. Examining injury severity of moped and
motorcycle occupants with real-time traffic and weather data. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems 144 (11). https://doi.org/10.1061/
jtepbs.0000193.
Wang, T., Chen, J., Wang, C., Ye, X., 2018. Understand e-bicyclist safety in China: crash
severity modeling using a generalized ordered logit model. Adv. Mech. Eng. 10 (6)
https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814018781625.
Wang, X., Jiao, Y., Huo, J., Li, R., Zhou, C., Pan, H., Chai, C., 2021a. Analysis of safety
climate and individual factors affecting bus drivers’ crash involvement using a two-
level logit model. Accid. Anal. Prev. 154, 106087 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2021.106087.
Wang, X., Peng, Y., Yi, S., Wang, H., Yu, W., 2021b. Risky behaviors, psychological
failures and kinematics in vehicle-to-powered two-wheeler accidents: results from
in-depth Chinese crash data. Accid. Anal. Prev. 156, 106150 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aap.2021.106150.
Waseem, M., Ahmed, A., Saeed, T.U., 2019. Factors affecting motorcyclists’ injury
severities: An empirical assessment using random parameters logit model with
heterogeneity in means and variances. Accid. Anal. Prev. 123, 12–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.10.022.
Who, 2017a. Powered two- and three-wheeler safety: a road safety manual for decision-
makers and practitioners. World Health Organization.
Who, 2017b. Save LIVES - A road safety technical package. World Health Organization.
Who, 2018. Global status report on road safety 2018. World Health Organization.
Williams, R., 2016. Understanding and interpreting generalized ordered logit models.
The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 40 (1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0022250x.2015.1112384.
Wolfe, J.M., Kosovicheva, A., Wolfe, B., 2022. Normal blindness: when we look but fail to
see. Trends Cogn. Sci. 26 (9), 809–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.006.
Xin, C., Wang, Z., Lee, C., Lin, P.-S., 2017. Modeling safety effects of horizontal curve
design on injury severity of single-motorcycle crashes with mixed-effects logistic
model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 2637 (1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.3141/2637-05.
Xinhuanet. (2019). China’s bicycle social ownership of nearly 400 million consecutively
the world’s largest. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-11/22/content_5454675.htm.
Xu, J., 2014. Authoritarian policing with Chinese characteristics: a case study of
motorcycle bans in the Pearl River Delta. Crime Law Soc. Chang. 61 (4), 439–460.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9495-1.
Yao, L., Wu, C., 2012. Traffic safety for electric bike riders in China. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2314 (1), 49–56.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2314-07.
Q. Qian and J. Shi
Ye, F., Wang, C., Cheng, W., Liu, H., Vitetta, A., 2021. Exploring factors associated with
cyclist injury severity in vehicle-electric bicycle crashes based on a random
parameter logit model. J. Adv. Transp. 2021, 1–12.
Yu, L.Y., Shi, L.D., Zhao, L.J., 2019. E-bikes regulation in Beijing. Tsinghua China Law
Review 11 (2), 341–368. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000500306700005.
Yun, H., Bae, S.J., Lee, J.I., Lee, D.H., 2022. Epidemiology, injury characteristics and
clinical outcomes of bicycle and motorcycle accidents in the under 20 population:
14
Accident Analysis and Prevention 190 (2023) 107189
South Korea. BMC Emerg. Med. 22 (1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-022-
00614-8.
Zmora, O., Peleg, K., Klein, Y., 2019. Pediatric electric bicycle injuries and comparison to
other pediatric traffic injuries. Traffic Inj. Prev. 20 (5), 540–543. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15389588.2019.1608361.