Proof of Concept for a Grounded Theory Approach to Understanding Interactions Occurring on Bicycle Facilities

Protected bicycle lanes are held up as the end-all of bicycle infrastructure, with unprotected bicycle lanes being widely considered unsafe and inferior. This perspective is supported by existing research showing people’s preference for protected versus unprotected bicycle lanes. Scant research, however, has explored this topic area using an observational research method. If an observational method is used, the research is typically count-based and focused on a predetermined sets of variables identified before the observation period and this hinders the research from advancing findings beyond frequencies and the already known variables. Without a clearer understanding of how people are using and interacting on streets with either type of bicycle lane, it is difficult, if not impossible, to adequately assess whether, and which, facility type best accommodates safe bicycle mobility. This paper introduces a new qualitative-quantitative method for conducting observational research which takes a grounded theory approach to gain new insights into how people behave and interact while using street segments, intersections, and other public places. This method follows a four-step process which involves qualitatively identifying interactions recorded on video, using deductive and inductive logic to document independent variables associated with interactions, and concludes in a quantitative analysis of the qualitatively produced data. As a display of the applications of this method, a case study is presented here which uses the new method to investigate the interactions of bicyclists with other road users on a street segment with an unprotected bicycle lane in Munich, Germany.

[1]  John C. Scott,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[2]  Søren Underlien Jensen,et al.  Safety effects of blue cycle crossings: a before-after study. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  Peter W. van Arsdale,et al.  Research methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches , 1996 .

[4]  Jennifer Dill,et al.  Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. , 2014 .

[5]  Charles J. DiMaggio,et al.  The Effect of Sharrows, Painted Bicycle Lanes and Physically Protected Paths on the Severity of Bicycle Injuries Caused by Motor Vehicles , 2016, Safety.

[6]  W. Whyte The social life of small urban spaces , 1980 .

[7]  Federico Rupi,et al.  An Analysis of Bicycle Travel Speed and Disturbances on Off-street and On-street Facilities☆ , 2015 .

[8]  Marco Dozza,et al.  How do drivers overtake cyclists? , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  Alan Wachtel,et al.  Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections * , 1994 .

[10]  Jan Gehl,et al.  How To Study Public Life , 2013 .

[11]  Elisabeth Füssl,et al.  Understanding cyclist identity and related interaction strategies. A novel approach to traffic research , 2017 .

[12]  P. Draper Reflexive methodology - new vistas for qualitative research: Media Reviews , 2008 .

[13]  Jane C. Stutts,et al.  BICYCLE LANES VERSUS WIDE CURB LANES: OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY FINDINGS AND COUNTERMEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS , 1999 .

[14]  Søren Underlien Jensen,et al.  Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: a Before-After Study , 2008 .

[15]  Rachel Aldred,et al.  Cycling near misses: Their frequency, impact, and prevention , 2016 .

[16]  A. Hicks Developing the methodological toolbox for information literacy research: Grounded theory and visual research methods , 2018, Library & Information Science Research.

[17]  Camden Miller,et al.  City cycling , 2018, Community Development.

[18]  Stella C Shackel,et al.  Influence of road markings, lane widths and driver behaviour on proximity and speed of vehicles overtaking cyclists. , 2014, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[19]  M. Harris,et al.  Safe cycling: how do risk perceptions compare with observed risk? , 2012, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[20]  Kevin J. Krizek,et al.  What is at the end of the road? Understanding discontinuities of on-street bicycle lanes in urban settings , 2005 .

[21]  H. Heath,et al.  Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and Strauss. , 2004, International journal of nursing studies.

[22]  Stefan Gössling,et al.  Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: Problems, policies, and the prospect of system change , 2020, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.

[23]  Rachel Aldred,et al.  Investigating the rates and impacts of near misses and related incidents among UK cyclists , 2015 .

[24]  Rebecca L. Sanders,et al.  Perceived Safety and Separated Bike Lanes in the Midwest: Results from a Roadway Design Survey in Michigan , 2018 .

[25]  Jack T Dennerlein,et al.  Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street , 2011, Injury Prevention.

[26]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[27]  Jennifer Dill,et al.  Can Protected Bike Lanes Help Close the Gender Gap in Cycling? Lessons from Five Cities , 2014 .

[28]  Gunter Mey,et al.  From Text to Image - Shaping a Visual Grounded Theory Methodology , 2016 .

[29]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory , 2017 .

[30]  S. Handy,et al.  QUALITATIVE METHODS IN TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH , 2003 .

[31]  Petter Næss Validating explanatory qualitative research: enhancing the interpretation of interviews in urban planning and transportation research , 2018, Applied Mobilities.