E-bikers' braking behavior: Results from a naturalistic cycling study

• Published in: Traffic injury prevention 2019-12, Vol.20 (sup3), p.62-67
• Main Authors: Huertas-Leyva, Pedro, Dozza, Marco, Baldanzini, Niccolò
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acceleration; Avoidance; Balance; Bicycles; Bicycling; Braking; braking performance; Braking systems; Complexity; cycling safety; Deceleration; Electric bicycle; Electric bicycles; Maneuvers; naturalistic data; pedelec; rider behavior; Roads; Safety; Safety measures; Traffic accidents & safety; traffic conflict; Traffic safety
• ISSN: 1538-9588; 1538-957X; 1538-957X
• DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1643015

Objective: The number of e-bike users has increased significantly over the past few years and with it the associated safety concerns. Because e-bikes are faster than conventional bicycles and more prone to be in conflict with road users, e-bikers may need to perform avoidance maneuvers more frequently. Braking is the most common avoidance maneuver but is also a complex and critical task in emergency situations, because cyclists must reduce speed quickly without losing balance. The aim of this study is to understand the braking strategies of e-bikers in real-world traffic environments and to assess their road safety implications. This article investigates (1) how cyclists on e-bikes use front and rear brakes during routine cycling and (2) whether this behavior changes during unexpected conflicts with other road users. Methods: Naturalistic data were collected from 6 regular bicycle riders who each rode e-bikes during a period of 2 weeks, for a total of 32.5 h of data. Braking events were identified and characterized through a combined analysis of brake pressure at each wheel, velocity, and longitudinal acceleration. Furthermore, the braking patterns obtained during unexpected events were compared with braking patterns during routine cycling. Results: In the majority of braking events during routine cycling, cyclists used only one brake at a time, favoring one of the 2 brakes according to a personal pre-established pattern. However, the favored brake varied among cyclists: 66% favored the rear brake and 16% the front brake. Only 16% of the cyclists showed no clear preference, variously using rear brake, front brake, or combined braking (both brakes at the same time), suggesting that the selection of which brake to use depended on the characteristics of the specific scenario experienced by the cyclist rather than on a personal preference. In unexpected conflicts, generally requiring a larger deceleration, combined braking became more prevalent for most of the cyclists; still, when combined braking was not applied, cyclists continued to use the favored brake of routine cycling. Kinematic analysis revealed that, when larger decelerations were required, cyclists more frequently used combined braking instead of single braking. Conclusions: The results provide new insights into the behavior of cyclists on e-bikes and may provide support in the development of safety measures including guidelines and best practices for optimal brake use. The results may also inform