Feasibility Analysis and Investigation of the User Acceptance of a Preventive Information System to Increase the Road Safety of Cyclists

  • Oliver M. WinzerEmail author
  • André Dietrich
  • Michael Tondera
  • Christoph Hera
  • Peter Eliseenkov
  • Klaus Bengler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1026)


This study aimed to investigate the user acceptance of a preventive Car-2-X communication warning system which could help drivers avoid potential collisions with cyclists. A User-Centered Design (UCD) process was used to develop a Human Machine Interface (HMI) as a warning system. Initially, an online survey (N = 153) was conducted to investigate user behavior and preference. To measure user acceptance, a 6-item survey on a 7-point Likert scale was conducted. User behavior was measured via 24 questions. Based on this, an HMI for the car driver was developed. The results of the acceptance score (M = 3.29) indicated rejection. However, most participants reported that they believe a system like this could improve road safety for cyclists. A functional prototype was developed and tested in a small field test. The results show that a 4G network and the GPS accuracy measured is sufficient for safety related applications.


Road safety of cyclists Car-2-X communication HMI Online survey Prototyping VRU 



This work is part of the “@city” project funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.


  1. 1.
    Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., Franke-Bartholdt, L., Krems, J., Gehlert, T.: The German Naturalistic Cycling Study – Comparing cycling speed of riders of different e-bikes and conventional bicycles. Saf. Sci. 92, 290–297 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    von Below, A.: Verkehrssicherheit von Radfahrern – Analyse sicherheitsrelevanter Motive. Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen. Bergisch Gladbach, Germany (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis): 2,7% mehr Verkehrstote im Jahr 2018 (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eisenberger, D.: Zahlen – Daten – Fakten zum Deutschen E-Bike-Markt 2018 (2019)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silla, A., Leden, L., Rämä, P., Scholliers, J., Van Noort, M., Bell, D.: Can cyclist safety be improved with intelligent transport systems? Accid. Anal. Prev. 105, 134–145 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    XCYCLE: Present State of Affairs (2016).
  7. 7.
    Jin, W., Kwan, C., Sun, Z., Yang, H., Gan, Q.: SPIVC: a SmartPhone-based inter-vehicle communication system. Transp. Res. Board 91st Annu. Meet. (2012).
  8. 8.
    Prati, G., Puchades, V.M., De Angelis, M., Pietrantoni, L., Fraboni, F., Decarli, N., Guerra, A., Dardari, D.: Evaluation of user behavior and acceptance of an on-bike system. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 58, 145–155 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 38, 475–487 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engström, J., Victor, T., Markkula, G.: Attention selection and multitasking in everyday driving: a conceptual model. In: Regan, M.A., Victor, T.W., Lee, J.D. (eds.) Driver Distraction and Inattention: Advances in Research and Countermeasures, pp. 27–54. Ashgate Publishing (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver M. Winzer
    • 1
    Email author
  • André Dietrich
    • 1
  • Michael Tondera
    • 1
  • Christoph Hera
    • 1
  • Peter Eliseenkov
    • 1
  • Klaus Bengler
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of ErgonomicsTechnical University of MunichGarching b. MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations