Alcohol is a global risk factor for road trauma. Although drink driving has received most of the scholarly attention, there is growing evidence of the risks of alcohol-impaired walking. Alcohol-impaired pedestrians are over-represented in fatal crashes compared to non-impaired pedestrians. Additionally, empirical evidence shows that alcohol intoxication impairs road-crossing judgements. Besides some limited early research, much is unknown about the global prevalence and determinants of alcohol-impaired walking. Understanding alcohol-impaired walking will support health promotion initiatives and injury prevention. The present investigation has three aims: (1) compare the prevalence of alcohol-impaired walking across countries; (2) identify international groups of pedestrians based on psychosocial factors (i.e., Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and perceptions of risk); and (3) investigate how segments of pedestrians form their intention for alcohol-impaired walking using the extended TPB (i.e. subjective norm, attitudes, perceived control, and perceived risk). A cross-sectional design was applied. The target behaviour question was “have you been a pedestrian when your thinking or physical ability (balance/strength) is affected by alcohol?” to ensure comparability across countries. Cluster analysis based on the extended TPB was used to identify groups of countries. Finally, regressions were used to predict pedestrians’ intentions per group. A total of 6,166 respondents (Age M(SD) = 29.4 (14.2); Males = 39.2%) completed the questionnaire, ranging from 12.6% from Russia to 2.2% from Finland. The proportion of participants who reported never engaging in alcohol-impaired walking in the last three months ranged from 30.1% (Spain) to 83.1% (Turkey). Four groups of countries were identified: group-1 (Czech Republic, Spain, and Australia), group-2 (Russia and Finland), group-3 (Japan), and group-4 (final ten countries including Colombia, China, and Romania). Pedestrian intentions to engage in alcohol- impaired walking are predicted by perceptions of risk and TPB-psychosocial factors in group-1 and group-4. Favourable TPB-beliefs and low perceived risk increased alcohol-impaired walking intentions. Conversely, subjective norms were not significant in group-2 and only perceived risk predicted intention in group-3. The willingness of pedestrians to walk when alcohol-impaired differs significantly across the countries in this study. Perceived risk was the only common predictor among the 16 countries.@en

The growth in the gig economy and a preference for home delivery of meals due to COVID-19 have led to huge growth in the food delivery business internationally and consequent road safety concerns. There is increasing evidence that delivery riding is an occupation with significant road safety risks because work pressures encourage risky behaviours. However, there is little or no research that directly compares delivery and private riders. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the impact of riding for work by comparing the observable riding behaviours of food delivery and private bicycle riders. Specifically, this investigation used decision trees to analyse the prevalence and patterns of risky riding behaviours of 2274 bicycle food delivery riders (BFDRs) and 1127 private bicycle riders observed in the inner suburbs of Brisbane, Australia. The results showed that helmet use was higher for BFDRs than private riders (99.8% versus 93.4%) but varied by company and for some companies, female BFDRs had lower wearing rates. Male BFDRs on electric bikes were more likely to wear helmets than those on standard bikes (99.7% versus 94.9%). Using a handheld mobile phone or having a mobile phone in a cradle was less common for one company (0.6%) than for the others (3.0%) or among private riders (1.8%). Among riders from the Other Companies, using a handheld mobile phone was more common on standard bikes and differed by time of day. Female BFDRs were more likely to be observed using handheld mobile phones. Overall, 24.0% of riders facing a red traffic or pedestrian signal (“red light”) did not stop. This was more common among riders who rode on the footpath (Australian term for sidewalk), and particularly those who moved between the footpath and the road on electric bikes (49.5%) and among those who rode in the wrong direction in the traffic lane (55.0%). Whether the rider was a BFDR or private rider had little influence on red light running. The results suggest that BFDRs are not more likely to perform the risky behaviours examined, but that other factors such as bicycle type, gender, time of day and infrastructure appear to be more important determinants. However, the differences among companies suggest that organisational factors deserve further investigation.@en

Background: The popularity of cycling in a group is longstanding and increasing. Compared to riding as an individual, many cyclists feel safer when riding in a group as they have better personal security, potential support in case of mishaps, safer wayfinding and are more visible to other road users. However, further to the safety challenges shared with individual cyclists, group cyclist safety is impacted by rider proximity, the larger space taken up on roadways, potentially higher speeds, and social norms that could increase risky behaviours. Despite these unique safety considerations, the practice of cycling in groups has received little academic attention and group cyclist safety behaviours have not been analysed by road safety researchers. Objective: To identify, describe, categorise and conceptualise within a teamwork framework, safety related behaviours of groups of cyclists as mentioned in academic literature. Methods: Three academic databases (Google Scholar, Proquest, and Scopus) were searched for peer reviewed literature that mentioned safe or risky behaviours of groups of cyclists. A total of 32 papers met the inclusion criteria. Relevant group cyclist behaviours were described and categorised using a conceptual teamwork framework. Results: Group cyclists’ safety behaviours are governed by a comprehensive but informal and adaptable set of rules. These rules are safety critical and are often strictly controlled within groups. Many groups of cyclists may ride in a safer manner than individual cyclists due to teamwork factors, particularly shared mental models, team orientation, and adaptability. Conclusion: Group cyclists take safety seriously. Teamwork factors may make behavioural interventions to decrease risky behaviours easier to implement with group cyclists compared to individual cyclists. Investigation of group cycling safety behaviours may inform safe system interventions to increase road safety.@en