Highlights Piloting the Walking and Cycling Behaviour Questionnaires in the UK. Factor structures were found to be different to those reported previously. Self-reported unintentional walking and cycling behaviours correlate significantly. Self-rated cycling proficiency correlates with the performance of unintentional errors. Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire scores add little to the explanation of past collisions.
Abstract Greater uptake of active transport has been argued as necessary for the transport system to achieve relevant sustainability and public health goals; however, the research tools used to investigate behaviour when using these modes are far less well-developed than those used to investigate driving behaviour. This study takes two self-report behavioural measures, the Walking Behaviour Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire (WBQ), and pilots them in the UK. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with data from 428 respondents revealed factor structures different to those described in the limited number of previous studies that used the CBQ and WBQ. Across both questionnaires, scales measuring intentional behaviour differed from original descriptions to a greater extent than did the scale concerning unintentional attention or memory errors. In addition to a validation exercise, this research explored the relationships between variables, finding a correlation between the reported performance of unintentional errors when walking and cycling. Looking in more detail at cycling behaviours, we found that those who rated themselves as more proficient cyclists also reported performing fewer unintentional cycling errors. Results also showed self-reported helmet use to bear little to no relationship with other self-reported cycling behaviours or self-rated cycling proficiency. Finally, using structural equation modelling, we demonstrated that responses to the CBQ add very little (over and above age, gender, and exposure to the road environment) to the explanation of self-reported past collision involvement. In total, only 7% of the variation in past collision involvement was explained by the included variables. We urge caution when using self-report behavioural measures that have not been validated in the context of intended use, and the importance of using such measures in combination with other approaches rather than in isolation when trying to develop an understanding of overall system performance.
To what extent do our walking and cycling behaviours relate to each other, and do we cycle as well as we think we do? Piloting the walking and cycling behaviour questionnaires in the UK
2022-02-06
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Englisch
Walking and Cycling as Transport
NTIS | 1997
|More than walking and cycling: What is ‘active travel’?
Elsevier | 2022
|Planning walking networks and cycling networks
British Library Conference Proceedings | 2010
|Walking scooting running cycling while sitting devise
Europäisches Patentamt | 2015
|Transportation modelling for model walking and cycling communities
Online Contents | 2011
|