Methods of Cyclist Training in Europe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript compares the methods of cycling education and cyclist training systems in some nations, including the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, England, Slovenia, Poland, and Italy. In my opinion, the manuscript lacks some major points to make it interesting for the readers.
First, the manuscript structure is loose; it needs to be presented in a more comprehensive way.
Second, the study lacks a strong motive in addition to a salient contribution statement.
Third, the reference to the importance of crash severity modeling is missing like: Variance-based global sensitivity analysis for rear-end crash investigation using deep learning and Using latent class clustering and binary logistic regression to model Australian cyclist injury severity in motor vehicle–bicycle crashes.
Forth also, the reference to the importance of developing routing algorithms in a match with techniques presented in A bi-objective cyclist route choice model and Pareto optimal path generation algorithm in stochastic transportation networks for cyclist's movements
Fifth, no quantitative comparative results are found between the countries' practices.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
This manuscript compares the methods of cycling education and cyclist training systems in some nations, including the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, England, Slovenia, Poland, and Italy. In my opinion, the manuscript lacks some major points to make it interesting for the readers.
First, the manuscript structure is loose; it needs to be presented in a more comprehensive way.
We thank the reviewer for the comments to improve the paper. We have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the paper, diligently working to enhance the overall structure and coherence of the manuscript. This revision process involved a meticulous review of the content, with a focus on refining the organization, clarity, and logical flow of the document. Numerous improvements have been made to ensure that the paper effectively conveys its intended message and findings in a clear and cohesive manner.
Second, the study lacks a strong motive in addition to a salient contribution statement.
We have added a comment in the introduction and in the conclusion.
Third, the reference to the importance of crash severity modeling is missing like: Variance-based global sensitivity analysis for rear-end crash investigation using deep learning and Using latent class clustering and binary logistic regression to model Australian cyclist injury severity in motor vehicle–bicycle crashes.
The subjects explored in the paper do not encompass crash severity modeling; rather, we are exclusively focused on elucidating various methods and strategies for cyclist education. Within the paper, an in-depth examination of these educational approaches is conducted, encompassing aspects such as training methodologies, age-specific considerations, and the role of various stakeholders in promoting safe cycling practices among cyclists of all ages. This concentrated focus on cyclist education serves as a valuable resource for advancing road safety and reducing cycling-related accidents, that we will discuss in the future.
Forth also, the reference to the importance of developing routing algorithms in a match with techniques presented in A bi-objective cyclist route choice model and Pareto optimal path generation algorithm in stochastic transportation networks for cyclist's movements
The paper primarily delves into specific themes and issues related to cyclist education methodologies, their implementation, and their role in promoting safe cycling practices. Consequently, the exploration of routing algorithms, as highlighted in the context of A bi-objective cyclist route choice model and Pareto optimal path generation algorithm in stochastic transportation networks for cyclist's movements, represents a departure from the central focus of the paper. While routing algorithms indeed play a role in enhancing cyclists' experiences and safety, their detailed examination within the context of this paper could potentially divert attention from the core themes and findings concerning cyclist education methods. Therefore, the inclusion of routing algorithms in the discussion may not align coherently with the primary objectives and concerns of the paper.
Fifth, no quantitative comparative results are found between the countries' practices.
Given the data at our disposal, a quantitative comparison is not viable. Instead, the analysis conducted in the conclusions primarily relies on a qualitative approach, emphasizing the evaluation of qualitative aspects, insights, and trends derived from the information available. This approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and its implications, even in the absence of precise quantitative metrics.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting about cycling training in the European area. The paper provides a good background regarding cycling issues in Europe. in addition, the paper profile a background of cycling education in Europe including Germany and the Netherlands. However, the research methodology and scope of the research are not clear on what are the critical issues or the objectives of this paper. Furthermore, the paper does not provide concrete results and lacks discussion across different literature or past studies on the related topics. Moreover, the paper does not provide a clear implication for the stakeholders related to cycling, and the limitation of the research was not clearly addressed.
The language was acceptable but need to be professionally edited.
Author Response
The topic is interesting about cycling training in the European area. The paper provides a good background regarding cycling issues in Europe. in addition, the paper profile a background of cycling education in Europe including Germany and the Netherlands. However, the research methodology and scope of the research are not clear on what are the critical issues or the objectives of this paper. Furthermore, the paper does not provide concrete results and lacks discussion across different literature or past studies on the related topics. Moreover, the paper does not provide a clear implication for the stakeholders related to cycling, and the limitation of the research was not clearly addressed.
We thank the reviewer for the comments to improve the paper. We have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the paper, diligently working to enhance the overall structure and coherence of the manuscript. This revision process involved a meticulous review of the content, with a focus on refining the organization, clarity, and logical flow of the document. Numerous improvements have been made to ensure that the paper effectively conveys its intended message and findings in a clear and cohesive manner.
In order to provide a clear framework for the paper and to delineate the boundaries of our research, we have incorporated specific statements in both the introduction and conclusion sections. These statements serve to elucidate the paper's overarching goals and also to acknowledge the inherent limitations of our research endeavors. It is important to note that despite an extensive review of the existing literature, no prior studies specifically addressing the same thematic concerns have been identified. Our research represents a novel contribution to the field, aimed at filling an existing gap in the body of knowledge pertaining to cyclist education and safety practices. Furthermore, as part of our efforts to enhance the paper's overall structure and coherence, we have taken deliberate steps to emphasize the key stakeholders involved in the realm of cycling infrastructure and safety. By doing so, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the various entities and individuals whose actions, policies, and practices have a significant impact on the promotion of safe cycling and the development of cycling-related education programs.
Paper has been revised by a native research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Despite the absence of a distinct modeling framework and a specific methodology, which deviates from the conventional research article format, this manuscript bears merit in its own right. I should add, some may criticize this article doesn't fit the traditional mold of a literature review paper with offering an in-depth critique of existing research articles within a specific field, but I believe this manuscript takes a unique approach by describing and comparing cycling training methods employed across European countries. It offers valuable insights that I found quite enriching during my perusal.
The paper comprehensively elucidates various methods employed in European countries for cycling training, providing a detailed summary of these approaches (which can be considered as a form of comparison). This exploration proves to be an enlightening endeavor, as it can provide valuable guidance to researchers and organizations tasked with the responsibility of cyclist training and accident reduction. In light of its potential to offer meaningful contributions to this field, I am inclined to recommend the acceptance of this paper.
Author Response
We express our gratitude to the reviewer for their favorable assessment of our work.
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript explored diverse practices across different countries and analyzed the potential ramifications of varying approaches to the issue of whether every individual who uses a bicycle is adequately prepared for safe riding. The paper is well-structured, containing some interesting and useful information. The authors provide a complete framework on the subject. The results are also well-founded and validated, and the conclusions are well-presented.
- The quality of the study would be further improved if a paragraph were added in the concluding section to discuss the added value to the research community and more in-depth discussions on future implications for policy and practice.
Author Response
We express our gratitude to the reviewer for their favorable assessment of our work and we thank the reviewer for the comments to improve the paper. We have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the paper, diligently working to enhance the overall structure and coherence of the manuscript. This revision process involved a meticulous review of the content, with a focus on refining the organization, clarity, and logical flow of the document. Numerous improvements have been made to ensure that the paper effectively conveys its intended message and findings in a clear and cohesive manner.
In order to provide a clear framework for the paper and to delineate the boundaries of our research, we have incorporated specific statements in both the introduction and conclusion sections. These statements serve to elucidate the paper's overarching goals and also to acknowledge the inherent limitations of our research endeavors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further comments.
No further comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision was fine and according to the comments of the reviewer.
The paper is has been edited appropriately.
