Figures (5)  Tables (7)

    • Figure 1. 

      Descriptive statistics. (a) Colored pavement, (b) traffic volume, (c) lane sign, (d) weather, and (e) vehicle type of adjacent.

    • Figure 2. 

      Guardrail safety ranking chart.

    • Figure 3. 

      Colored pavement safety ranking.

    • Figure 4. 

      The impact of traffic volume and colored pavement on guardrail selection. (a) Option 2: metal guardrail. (b) Option 3: warning post guardrail.

    • Figure 5. 

      Influence of lane signs and colored pavements on guardrail selection. (a) Option 2: metal guardrail. (b) Option 3: warning post guardrail.

    • Kicker stone guardrail Metal guardrail Warning post guardrail
      No pavement
      Green
      Red

      Table 1. 

      Attributes and levels considered in the choice experiments.

    • Attributes Level
      Kicker stone guardrail Metal
      guardrail      		 Warning post guardrail
      Colored pavement Level 1 No color
      Level 2 Red
      Level 3 Green
      Traffic volume Level 1 Low
      Level 2 Moderate
      Level 3 High
      Presence of lane signs Level 1 No
      Level 2 Yes
      Weather condition Level 1 Shine
      Level 2 Rain
      Vehicle type of adjacent Level 1 Conventional vehicle
      Level 2 Autonomous vehicle
      Level 3 Large vehicle

      Table 2. 

      Attributes and levels considered in the choice experiments.

    • Colored pavement Red
      Traffic volume High
      Presence of lane sign No
      Weather condition Rain
      Vehicle type of adjacent Large vehicles
      Selection A. Kicker stone guardrail
      B. Metal guardrail
      C. Warning post guardrail

      Table 3. 

      Display of a selected scenario.

    • Variable Attribute Count Percentage Proportion in
      China population
      Sex Male 329 47.5% 51.2%
      Female 364 52.5% 48.8%
      Age (year) ≤ 19 23 3.3% NA
      20−24 247 35.6% 5.2%
      25−29 203 29.3% 6.1%
      30−39 135 19.5% 15.9%
      40−49 61 8.8% 14.3%
      50−59 19 2.7% 16.9%
      ≥ 60 5 0.7% 28.9%
      Education level Junior high school and below 15 2.2% 34.7%*
      Senior high school 77 11.1% 16.7%
      Tertiary education 433 62.5% 17.9%
      Postgraduate and above 168 24.2% 0.9%
      Marital status Unmarried 496 71.6% 19.4%
      Married 197 28.4% 72.6%
      Occupation Full-time 369 53.2% 85.5%
      Student 217 31.3% 14.5%
      Not working
      full-time/retired      		 107 15.4% NA
      Monthly revenue (CNY) ≤ 4,000 253 36.5% NA
      4,000−5,999 137 19.8%
      6,000−7,999 129 18.6%
      8,000−9,999 116 16.7%
      ≥ 10,000 58 8.4%
      Riding speed (km/h) ≤ 5 158 22.8% NA
      6−9 291 42.0%
      7−15 177 25.5%
      ≥ 16 67 9.7%
      Number of bike rides (per week) No cycling 64 9.2% NA
      1−3 245 35.4%
      3−6 181 26.1%
      ≥ 7 203 29.3%
      Cycling time (h/week) ≤ 1 191 27.6% NA
      1−3 234 33.8%
      3−6 164 23.7%
      ≥ 7 104 15.0%
      Mobile phone usage while riding (h/week) 0 351 50.6% NA
      1−2 199 28.7%
      3−4 75 10.8%
      ≥ 5 68 9.8%
      Red light running while riding (h) 0 493 71.1% NA
      1−2 132 19.0%
      3−4 57 8.2%
      ≥ 5 11 1.6%
      Involved in traffic accidents Yes 79 11.4% NA
      No 619 89.3%
      Proficiency Beginner level 39 5.6% NA
      Normal level 280 40.4%
      Proficiency level 374 54.0%
      NA means Not available. This shows that there is no data published in the official.

      Table 4. 

      Summary of participant characteristics.

    • Mean St. d
      Kicker stone guardrail Importance (1-unimportant, 7-very important)
      Proficiency in cycling skills 5.56 1.72
      Bicycle lane width 5.89 1.43
      Bicycle vehicle sign 5.83 1.54
      Metal guardrail Guardrail width 5.34 1.81
      Guardrail height 5.51 1.62
      Bicycle lane width 5.87 1.37
      Bicycle vehicle sign 5.86 1.44
      Warning post guardrail Warning post height 5.55 1.62
      Bicycle lane width 5.87 1.34
      Bicycle vehicle sign 5.88 1.44

      Table 5. 

      Importance and preference of design and environmental factors.

    • Scope of work Factor Attribute RPRU model (omitted choice: kicker stone guardrail) RPRR model (omitted choice: kicker stone guardrail)
      Metal guardrail Warning post guardrail Metal guardrail Warning post guardrail
      Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E.
      Constant 2.67*** 0.9 IS 2.07** 0.98 IS
      SP attributes Colored pavement (omitted category: No color and red) Green IS Mean 0.27 IS Mean 0.13
      SD 0.22*** SD 0.15***
      Lane sign (omitted category: Yes) No −0.25* 0.13 −0.43** 0.21 −0.16* 0.08 −0.27* 0.14
      Traffic volume (omitted category: less and medium) More IS 0.65** 0.26 IS 0.45** 0.22
      Demographic
      factors      		 Age (omitted category: middle-aged) Youth 0.62*** 0.14 0.44** 0.21 0.42*** 0.08 0.30* 0.16
      Educational level (omitted category: postgraduate and above) Junior high
      school and below      		 −0.38** 0.17 0.71*** 0.23 −0.24** 0.11 0.49*** 0.17
      Riding
      habit      		 Riding time (omitted category: moderate) Seldom 0.48** 0.21 IS 0.33*** 0.12 IS
      Number of riding trips (omitted category: frequently) Seldom −0.72*** 0.25 IS −0.46*** 0.13 IS
      Moderate Mean 0.05 IS Mean 0.13 IS
      SD 0.20*** SD 0.15***
      Have there been any non-motor vehicle accidents (omitted category: yes) No IS −1.64*** 0.25 IS −1.01*** 0.16
      Frequency of running red light (omitted category: frequently) Seldom −1.80** 0.76 IS −1.10* 0.57 IS
      Moderate −1.64** 0.79 IS −1.02* 0.58 IS
      Risk
      Perception
      factors      		 Possibility of accidents (omitted category: moderate) Minor 0.30* 0.18 IS 0.21** 0.11 IS
      Serious IS 0.76*** 0.22 IS 0.53*** 0.18
      Severity of the accident (omitted category: serious) Minor 0.33* 0.19 0.60* 0.33 0.23* 0.12 0.41* 0.23
      Moderate IS 0.40* 0.23 IS 0.27* 0.16
      Log-likelihood at zero (LL (0)) −3045.35326 −3045.35326
      Log-likelihood at convergence (LL(β)) −2112.6678 −2112.6678
      McFadden Pseudo R-square 0.38 0.38
      AIC 3881.9 3885.2
      *** is statistically significant at the 1% level; ** is statistically significant at the 5% level; * is statistically significant at the 10% level; IS indicates not significant.

      Table 6. 

      Parameter estimation results for multinomial logit model.

    • Variable description Marginal effects
      Metal guardrail Warning
      post guardrail
      Colored pavement Green (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [WPG] −0.011 0.016
      Lane sign Lane sign (1 if no, 0 otherwise) [MG] −0.061 0.014
      Lane sign (1 if no, 0 otherwise) [WPG] 0.025 −0.036
      Traffic volume More (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [WPG] −0.013 0.019
      Age Youth (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] 0.032 −0.008
      Youth (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [WPG] −0.006 0.008
      Educational level Senior high school (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] −0.010 0.004
      Senior high school (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [WPG] −0.007 0.010
      Riding time Seldom (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] 0.018 −0.004
      Number of riding trips Seldom (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] −0.0129 0.002
      Moderate (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] −0.030 0.006
      Have there been any non-motor vehicle accidents No accidents (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [WPG] 0.046 −0.068
      Frequency of running red light Seldom (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] −0.025 0.010
      Moderate (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] −0.025 0.010
      Possibility of accidents Minor (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] 0.007 −0.001
      Serious (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [WPG] −0.014 0.021
      Severity of the accident Minor (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [MG] 0.011 −0.002
      Minor (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [WPG] −0.004 0.005
      Moderate (1 if yes, 0 otherwise) [WPG] −0.006 0.008
      Parameters defined for: MG, metal guardrail; WPG, warning post guardrail.

      Table 7. 

      Marginal effects of parameter estimation of the panel mixed multinomial logit model.