A Comparison of Bicyclist Attitudes in Two Urban Areas in USA and Italy

  • Nikiforos StamatiadisEmail author
  • Salvatore Cafiso
  • Giuseppina Pappalardo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)


Over the past 40 years, the number of people using bicycles as their primary means of transportation has increased significantly. Transportation agencies around the world now promote bicycling as a way to reduce pollution and traffic congestion. However, the lack of bicycling infrastructure in many cities could significantly impede the future growth of bicycle usage. This paper used a web survey to evaluate the attitudes and preferences of bicyclists in two cities: Lexington, Kentucky, USA and Catania, Sicily, Italy. The goal of the survey was to document impediments to bicycling in both cities, determine how infrastructure could be improved. Descriptive statistics and test of hypothesis were applied to the survey data to analyze participant responses and their level of agreement. Confirming previous research, respondents in both cities overwhelmingly cited lack of infrastructure as a major obstacle to bicycling more often. Respondents indicated that improving bicycle infrastructure and pavement conditions would result in an increased number of bicycle trips. While the survey findings lend support to the idea that bicyclists around the world harbor similar attitudes about what improvements are needed to increase cycling and enhance their experiences, local conditions and practices also influence perceptions about the relevance of specific issue.


Bicyclist mobility Bicyclist preferences Infrastructure 


  1. 1.
    US Department of Transportation “National household travel survey 2009. Version 2.0/2010”, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 2012 National survey of bicyclist and pedestrian attitudes and behavior. Report DOT HS 811 841, NHTSA, Washington, DC (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pucher, J., Buelher, R., Seinee, M.: Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transp. Res. Part A 45, 451–475 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ECMT: Safety in road traffic for vulnerable users, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD, Paris (2000). Accessed 15 May 2017
  5. 5.
    Broach, J., Dill, J., Gliebe, J.: Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data. Transp. Res. Part A 46, 1730–1740 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang, L., Fricker, J.: Bicyclist commuters’ choice of on-street versus off-street route segments. Transportation 40, 887–902 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buehler, R., Pucher, J.: Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bicycle paths and lanes. Transportation 39, 409–432 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aultman-Hall, L., Hall, F., Baetz, B.: Analysis of bicycle commuter routes using geographic information systems: implications for bicycle planning. Transp. Res. Rec. 1578, 102–110 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dill, J., Carr, T.: Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities: if you build them, commuters will use them-another look. Transp. Res. Rec. 1828, 116–123 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parkin, J., Wardman, M., Page, M.: Estimation of the determinants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census data. Transportation 35, 93–109 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schroeder, P., Wilbur, M.: 2012 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and Behavior Volume 1: Summary Report. DOT HS 811 841 A. Office of Behavioral Safety Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2013). Accessed 18 June 2017
  12. 12.
    Stamatiadis, N., Pappalardo, G., Cafiso, S.: Utilizing technology to encourage smart-city bicycle mobility. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on “Smart Cities and Mobility as a Service”, Patras, Greece (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Directorate General for Internal Policies Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies: The Promotion Of Cycling. Brussels, European Parliament (2010). Accessed 16 May 2017
  14. 14.
    Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE): Attitudes of Europeans towards urban mobility. Eurobarometer 406 (2013). Accessed 16 May 2017
  15. 15.
    Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J.: Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cafiso, S., Di Graziano, A., Pappalardo, G.: Using the Delphi method to evaluate opinions of public transport managers on bus safety. Saf. Sci. 57C, 254–263 (2013). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations