Analysis of the Characteristics and Number of Bicycle–Passenger Conflicts at Bus Stops for Improving Safety
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This represents an excellent article.
In figure 1 people's faces should be blurred for privacy.
The mathematical model looks good, but we need to see if applying it in another context, for example in Europe, we get the same results. In Europe, for example, bicycle flows are much lower.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
We are truly grateful to your critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are highlighted in yellow. We hope the new manuscript will meet your requirements. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to your comments:
People's faces in figure 1 has been covered with mosaics. Please see figure 1 in line 54. The proposed GEC model need to be test and improved by a wider variety of traffic conditions and cases to obtain the better performance. We will continue to conduct a further study. We have indicated this limitation in Conclusion part. Please see line 333-335.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Analysis of the Characteristics and Number of bicycle-passenger conflicts at bus stops for improving Safety.
Yan et al.
This paper studies four types of bicycle-passenger conflicts of tracks at bus stops by video recording. Finally, a generalized event count (GEC) model was established for bicycle-passenger conflict estimation.
In my opinion, the topic is interesting; however, there are a number of improvements that I believe necessary before it can be published.
Abstract
It has to be clearer for the reader. It talks about 4 types of conflicts (a, b, c, d) without having been previously explained, assuming that the reader knows them. This should be corrected.
It also uses abbreviations (GEC and MAPE) which should be defined first.
Introduction
Line 80. Cites Zhao et al. [10]. It must be a mistake since this reference belongs to Pan et al. (line 73). Consider review the reference.
Methods
Line 108. “30cm*150cm”. The numerical value always precedes the unit, and a space is always used to separate the unit from the number. The only exceptions are symbols for degree, minute and second for angle. Consider review the paper with this prescription.
Line 109. “Figure 1” should be figure 2.
Line 112. Appears figure 3 without been mentioned before. Figures should be after the text.
Line 117. “Some simple calculations”. Define which ones.
Line 119. “Figure 2”. It should be figure 3.
Line 132. “[60, 1860]” It is a range in brackets. Since brackets are used to cite the references, other kind of symbol should be used instead.
Line 142. Add the abbreviation GEC to justify the use in the rest of the text.
Line 150. Symbol λ (mean) should be defined as σ does.
Line 166. Abbreviation of “Eq.” should be avoided. Consider to use equation instead.
Line 170. “Solve”. Revise grammar. It should be solving or solved.
Results and Discussions.
This section includes only a description of the results but it has no discussions on it. The results should be analysed and compared with other research. They are no reference in this section and they are necessary to discuss the results of the research made.
Line 197. Figure 5. It should be placed after being cited.
Line 219. Define SD. (standard deviation I guess).
Lines 227, 228. Place a dot after table 2 and table 3.
Line 228. Symbols SS, DF, MS and F are not defined. Consider to add an explanation.
References
Consider to add more references, mainly to discuss the results of the research.
Line 304. Year of “reference 1” should be in bold font.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
We are truly grateful to your critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are highlighted in yellow. We hope the new manuscript will meet your requirements. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to your comments:
The abstract has been updated and four types of conflicts, GEC, and MAPE have been defined. Please see line 21-22 and 28-29. The citations in introduction have been updated and corrected. Please see line 78 and 94. The length description in Methods has been corrected. In addition, the paper was reviewed and the similar descriptions have been checked and revised. See line 122-123. The numbers of figures in the paper have been checked and modified. Please see line 124 and 135. The wrong locations of figures have been corrected. Please see line 140 and 225. We have defined “Some simple calculations” clearly in line 132. The data ranges of the indicators were described in other ways instead of using brackets. Pleased see line 150-155. Symbol λ (mean) was defined in line 168. The errors in abbreviations, like GEC, Eq., SD, SS, DF, MS and F, have been corrected. Please see line 161, 183, 186, 236, 250-251. In respect to “results and discussions”, Through comparing with the similar studies by Wang et al. and Zhao et al., we discussed the generalized factors impacting in a traffic conflict. Then, David et al.’ research on the relationship between cyclist-pedestrian conflict and pedestrian density was cited to point out the direction of improving the GEC model. Please see line 286-307. Other errors in grammar and punctuation was corrected. See line 244, 248. In the end, more references were added.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper studies the characteristics of bicycle-passenger conflicts at bus stops. Although cycle tracks or protected bike lanes solve the conflicts between bicycles and buses, in fact, bicycles will meet the crossing passengers when they pass behind stops. When cycling and passenger flow are both at a heavy state, many conflicts can occur and, due to the higher speed of bicycles, especially for electric bicycles, they can cause crashes, injuries and even deaths.
The research was carried out by means of video recording to analyse the traffic flow operation at bus stops, with the aim to develop a model for accurately predict the number of conflicts. In particular, duration and distribution characteristics of bicycle-passenger conflict were statistically analysed and four types of conflicts have been defined and compared on the basis of evasive behaviour.
The results show that bicycle volume, bus passenger volume, and passenger crossing time have to be considered as critical factors respect to the number of bicycle-passenger conflicts. These conclusions can result useful for transport agencies in order to decide the installation of separations and crosswalks to improve the safety of stop area.
The paper considers some previous studies and experiences on this field, but the analysis of the literature should be extended and improved, especially as regards of theoretical and empirical models aimed to define, classify and determine the risk due to traffic conflict (both bicycle-pedestrians and vehicle pedestrians).
The description of the adopted methodology is quite good, but some picture of the investigated area could result useful to better present the conditions of the accomplished experimental study and its limits.
The organization of the paper is good; the methodology adopted for the statistical analyses is correct.
The findings of the research are reliable and clearly presented; some additional comments about the effectiveness and usefulness of the proposed experimental approach are needed.
In particular, it would be useful to consider if the methods and processes, as well as required equipment, could be more diffusely adopted from traffic agencies and researchers and, in this case, if the expected impact is significant for improving safety performances of road infrastructure.
In general, the paper can be considered as an interesting experimental research and a contribution to the better knowledge of the problem of bicycle-passenger conflicts at bus stops or other similar areas.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
We are truly grateful to your critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are highlighted in yellow. We hope the new manuscript will meet your requirements. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to your comments:
More literatures on the definition, types of bicycle-pedestrian conflict and the impacting factors of the risk of a conflict were reviewed and analyzed from line 56-69. Two pictures were added into figure 1 to illustrated the field investigation. Some comments on the effectiveness and usefulness of the proposed method were added in the end (line 335-339).
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have correctly addressed the comments and suggestions provided on the previous version.
