International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20

Attitudes, norms and difficulties underlying road

sharing intentions as drivers and cyclists: Evidence
from the Czech Republic

Sigal Kaplan, Igor Mikolasek, Hana Bruhova Foltynova, Kira H. Janstrup &
Carlo G. Prato

To cite this article: Sigal Kaplan, Igor Mikolasek, Hana Bruhova Foltynova, Kira H. Janstrup
& Carlo G. Prato (2018): Attitudes, norms and difficulties underlying road sharing intentions as
drivers and cyclists: Evidence from the Czech Republic, International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2018.1471556

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1471556

Published online: 11 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1471556

Attitudes, norms and difficulties underlying road sharing intentions as drivers

and cyclists: Evidence from the Czech Republic
Sigal Kaplana, Igor Mikolasekb, Hana Bruhova Foltynovac, Kira H. Janstrupd, and Carlo G. Pratoe
a
Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel; bTransport Research Centre, Czech Ministry of

ı nad Labem, Czech Republic; dDepartment of
Transport, Brno, Czech Republic; cFaculty of Social and Economic Studies, UJEP, Ust

e
Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark; School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Cycling-inclusive urban planning is attracting attention worldwide because of the environmental, Received 26 October 2016
health, economic, and transport benefits inherent to cycling from the individual and the societal Revised 23 April 2018
perspectives. The Czech Republic is one of the emerging cycling countries that are trying to Accepted 25 April 2018
promote and support cycling, but cycling mode shares are low because of the poor quality of the
KEYWORDS
scarce infrastructure and the psychological barrier of the perceived lack of safety when cycling in Cycling; hybrid bivariate-
mixed traffic. This study takes a multimodal approach based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour ordered probit model;
and focuses on the factors underlying the willingness to share the road from the perspective of mixed traffic; road
cyclists and drivers: positive attitudes toward cycling, positive attitudes toward cyclists’ behavior, sharing; Theory of
social norms toward cycling and anxiety to share the road. A web-based questionnaire was tailor- Planned Behaviour;
designed and administered in the Czech Republic via social networks, web forums, and the Civinet
network, and a hybrid bivariate-ordered model tested the behavioral framework. Results show that
the willingness to share the road as a cyclist or as a driver relates positively to positive attitudes
towards cycling and cyclists’ behavior, and negatively to the anxiety of sharing the road. Moreover,
mediator effects are observed and a clear relation emerges between the experience on the road
as both a cyclist and a driver on the willingness to share the road as a cyclist. Lastly, results show
that the factors underlying road sharing intentions are related significantly to gender, travel habits,
and perceived personal and infrastructure-related barriers to cycling.

1. Introduction Despite its availability, affordability, and favorable social

Cycling-inclusive urban planning is attracting attention
worldwide as cycling contributes to the individual and soci-
etal well-being by relieving congestion, reducing environ-
mental emissions, preventing, and mitigating health risks
related to physical inactivity, and providing an affordable
transport solution that fosters social inclusion (see, e.g.,
Doorley et al., 2015; Murphy & Usher, 2015; Sagaris &
Ortuzar, 2015). Worldwide, bicycle ownership is 42% on
average, with highs of 80% in Scandinavia and northern
Europe, values of 60% in North America, Australia, China,
southern Europe, and South America, averages of 40% in
Russia, eastern Europe, United Kingdom, India, Africa, and
Southeast Asia, and lows of 20% in Central Asia, the middle
east, and central and north Africa (Oke et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, bicycle trip shares are as low as 1% in
Australia and North America and 2% in the United
Kingdom (Bassett et al., 2008) and as high as 18% in
Denmark and 25% in the Netherlands (Oakil et al., 2016),
and the cycled-km per person per year vary from 40 in
North America and 75 in the United Kingdom to 584 in
Denmark and 848 in the Netherlands (Bassett et al., 2008).
norms (Titze et al., 2014; Tapp et al., 2016), cycling has low
mode shares because of safety concerns related to lack of
cycling infrastructure, negative attitudes toward cycling, low
respect for cyclists’ needs by other road users, and reckless
behavior by car drivers (Daley et al., 2007; Fishman et al.,
2012; Lawson et al., 2013; Chataway et al., 2014). Even more
than the actual risk, the perception of potential risk acts as a
psychological barrier, preventing its view as a viable every-
day transport mode (Daley & Rissel, 2011; Mu~ noz et al.,
2013; Lawson et al., 2015). The perceived risk causes cycling
and driving stress, affects mode choice, and differs between
cyclists and motorists regarding the same incident with the
latter perceiving higher risk (Chaurand & Delhomme, 2013).
The fear of cycling relates to the lack of high-quality bicycle
infrastructure, especially on major roads and at intersections
(Daley et al., 2007; Parkin et al., 2007; Chataway et al.,
2014), and does not decrease with the use of safety gear
(Lawson et al., 2013; Chataway et al., 2014). The strength of
the fear increases for inexperienced cyclists (Daley et al.,
2007; Parkin et al., 2007; Chataway et al., 2014) and even a
single cycling experience decreases significantly safety
concerns (Gatersleben & Appleton, 2007).

CONTACT Carlo G. Prato c.prato@uq.edu.au School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Brisbane, Australia.
ß 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. KAPLAN ET AL.
Given the benefits of cycling, it is important to define
equitable ways of organizing urban systems in a cycling-
inclusive manner in order to mitigate social exclusion and
vulnerability (Sagaris & Ortuzar, 2015). The development of
bicycle infrastructure and dedicated cycling pathways is
often mentioned as a solution that increases the feeling of
safety (Chataway et al., 2014), relates to reduced cycling risk
(Wegman et al., 2012; Kaplan et al., 2014; Kaplan & Prato,
2015), and supports the development of utilitarian cycling
with high cost effectiveness even in cities without a strong
cycling tradition (Marqu
es et al., 2015). Nevertheless,
promoting road sharing between cyclists and motorists is an
important aspect of sustainable mobility because of three
main reasons.
Firstly, cycling infrastructure often lags decades behind
the formation of a cycling culture in car-oriented countries
where cyclists are still a minority (Prati et al., 2017). In
Santiago de Chile for example, multiple cycling groups and
organizations advocated cycling infrastructure over a span
of 15 years and a multitude of technical committees and
political roundtables discussed substantial changes to the city
streetscape by increasing the cycling network from 50 to
200 km, despite a Cycling Master Plan already existed from
the 1990s (Sagaris & Ortuzar, 2015). Possibly, the implemen-
tation of metropolitan master plans relies heavily on trad-
itional cost-benefit analysis that has severe limitations in
evaluating bicycle projects (van Wee & B€ orjesson, 2015), but
simply when cycling infrastructure is lagging behind the
formation of a cycling culture, sharing the road becomes an
important measure for initiating and maintaining a positive
mass effect.
Secondly, cycling crash risk in urban environments is
associated with infrastructure discontinuity points such as
intersections, bridges without cycling facilities, on-road tram
tracks, shopping center and garage entrances, and parked
vehicles (Boufous et al., 2012; Kaplan et al., 2014;
Vandenbulcke et al., 2014). The discontinuity points not
only increase the actual risk, but also decrease the degree of
comfort in cycling because of the perceived risk (Krizek &
Roland, 2005). Sharing the road deals with risk proactively
because it requires a safe system approach where the
inherent risks of traffic are dealt with by addressing multiple
stakeholders according to a shared responsibility vision and
a multi-dimensional prevention and mitigation perspective
(see, e.g., Cycling Embassy of Denmark, 2012; Wegman
et al., 2012; Schepers et al., 2017). Safe system principles
include (i) recognizing the limits of human performance, (ii)
acknowledging the limits of human tolerance, (iii) sharing
the responsibility for safe road use, and (iv) creating a
forgiving road transport system by separation and injury
mitigation (Pattinson & Thompson, 2014).
Lastly, urban traffic free routes as a standalone measure
appear insufficient to encourage a shift from the car to the
bicycle in everyday practical journeys and a multifaceted
approach combining physical infrastructure with social
marketing is preferable (Jones, 2012). This approach views
changing the built environment to include more bicycle paths
and changing human landscapes to include more cyclists as
complimentary measures. Lugo (2013) conceptualized people
as human infrastructure because they create networks in
which they hold places of meaning and value, and provided
the example of the CicLAvia event for advocating cycling in
Los Angeles that attracted over 100,000 participants and
changed the visibility of cyclists and the social norms in the
city. Cyclist visibility and shared road spaces promote the
“safety-in-numbers effect” as they create valuable social
norms regarding sharing the road (Lugo, 2013).
Understanding that the social climate forms an integral part
of the physical urban environment is also useful for address-
ing spill-over effects. Forms of spill-over are the development
of cycling infrastructure in a municipality or a region that
can stimulate cycling in neighbouring municipalities before
cycling infrastructure is laid out (Vandenbulcke et al., 2011),
and the use of the road network by experienced cyclists to
answer their needs for the quick and direct bicycle commut-
ing routes (Meng et al., 2014).
This study focuses on the factors underlying the willing-
ness to share the road as a cyclist and a driver, and its
relevance derives from the intensity of the road sharing
experience as manifested in recent studies. The terminology
used to describe the cyclist–motorist interaction by road
users and media shows an escalation of the dispute and a far
from pleasant road sharing experience. Common terms are
“animosity”, “harassment”, “road wars”, “risk-takers”, and
“law-breakers”, and both cyclists and drivers describe the
road sharing experience as unwelcoming (e.g., Joshi et al.,
2001; O’Connor & Brown, 2010; Daley & Rissel, 2011;
Heesch et al., 2011; Lawson et al., 2013; Kaplan & Prato,
2016). A recent study shows that the reaction of road users
to incidents is reactive rather than proactive and results in
refusing to assume responsibility, attributing the responsibil-
ity to others, and emphasizing the fault of the other party
instead of focusing on the incident (Paschalidis et al., 2016).
Along with aggressive and avoidance coping strategies, this
reaction explains the tendency of cyclist–motorist conflicts
to escalate and the mutual anxiety and reluctance to share
the road (Kaplan and Prato, 2016). Solutions like cycling on
sidewalks are not feasible because illegal in several countries
and unwelcome by pedestrians (Joshi et al., 2001; Daley &
Rissel, 2011), and solutions like setting artificial boundaries
(e.g., a 1.0–1.5 m passing law that was initiated in Australia)
create antagonism and deepen the controversy and the
animosity (English and Salmon, 2016). Notably, in cycling-
friendly countries there exists mutual respect between drivers
and cyclists stemming from the long-term cycling tradition
and the main role of cycling during childhood. Hence, there
is a need to understand how to create a cycling-inclusive
social climate in emerging cycling countries on the basis of
mutual understanding across road users as well as a need to
go beyond the cyclist–motorist dichotomy and recognize
that the two roles are not mutually exclusive.
While previous studies focused on actions and reactions
on the road of cyclists and motorists, a recent qualitative
study (Kaplan & Prato, 2016) focused on the chain of reac-
tion that leads to a particular result from a cyclist–motorist
encounter, and identified external and internal stimuli as
well as coping strategies. This study extends this line of
research by adopting the Theory of Planned Behaviour

(TPB, Ajzen, 1991), designing a questionnaire and estimating
a hybrid model to elicit the attitudes, norms, and difficulties
of cyclists and motorists sharing the road with the aim of
allowing road users to take responsibility and be proactive
for their road behavior. The rationale lies in the importance
of creating a meaningful dialogue among road users which
allows them to “first seek to understand and then be under-
stood” and be better prepared to sharing the road. In this
study, a questionnaire requested road users to envision shar-
ing the road as both cyclists and motorists, thus allowing to
think with the end in mind and create a clear vision of the
road sharing experience in order to facilitate a win–win
social climate respecting both the cyclist and motorist
perspectives.
The case-study focuses on the Czech Republic, which is
marketed by the European Cycling Route Network
(EuroVelo) as a cycle tourist destination due to the well
signed national cycle network and cycle friendly services. As
recognized by the Czech Government (2013), there is finan-
cial support for cycling infrastructure but, as an emerging
cycling country, there are spatial limitations where govern-
ment and municipalities often prefer low-cost solutions that
do not provide sufficient separation instead of more thor-
ough, yet time consuming, solutions. Cycling infrastructure
is therefore lacking continuity and quality, which makes
cyclists and motorists being forced to share the road in most
cities. It should be noted that the emerging cycling is notable
in the Czech Republic from the average 1.5 bicycles per
household and the 6.3 million bicycles in the country
(Krautov
a & Librov
a, 2009), alongside a growing tradition of
recreational and competitive cycling that is a major past
time for one third of the population (Vrtalov
a, 2009). As
plans and investments are at the top of the interests of
policy-makers (Czech Government, 2013), the major issue is
the low use of bicycles in the large cities that this study
looks at from the perspective of understanding what allows a
positive climate for cyclists and motorists to share the road
and let cycling develop while the infrastructure is not
built yet.
The remainder of the paper presents initially the ques-
tionnaire and the model, then describes the sample and the
model estimates, and last discusses the results and draws
conclusions from the study.
2. Methods
2.1. Questionnaire design and data collection
As mentioned, Czech Republic is an emerging cycling
country where the rationale of this study applies perfectly
because the infrastructure lags behind and cycling is
developing at a slower pace while cyclists and motorists
share the road. Creating a social climate where there is
mutual understanding requires the comprehension of the
factors behind the road sharing experience, and this study
basis the behavioral framework on the TPB (Ajzen, 1991).
According to the TPB, observed behavior is driven by
intentions which are motivated by personal attitudes, social
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 3
norms toward the behavior, and ease of taking action under
the assumption of volitional control.
Existing literature on sharing the road supports the
applicability of the TPB. The effect of attitudes and norms
as underlying factors in the decision to share the road is
evident in the dichotomy between the positive view of
cycling and its benefits and the fear of traffic as a barrier to
cycling, as well as the contrast between the popularity of
cycling for recreational purposes versus the portrayal of
sharing the road as “road wars”. The behavioral framework
investigates the hypothesis that the intention to share the
road by cyclists and motorists is related to positive attitudes
toward cycling in general and cyclist behavior in particular,
is anchored in the belief regarding cycling tradition becom-
ing the norm in the Czech Republic, and is negatively asso-
ciated with the anxiety inherent in mixed traffic situations.
A tailor-designed questionnaire was prepared according
to the hypothesis and was administered via social and pro-
fessional networks, cyclist and motorist web forums, and the
Civinet network (Civinet is an EU-supported group of local
authorities and organizations interested in sustainable mobil-
ity solutions for urban environments). Scales were designed
to measure attitudes and norms toward cycling and sharing
the road on the basis of a standardized interpretation of the
findings from previous qualitative studies (e.g., Joshi et al.,
2001; O’Connor & Brown, 2010; Daley & Rissel, 2011;
Heesch et al., 2011; Lawson et al., 2013; Kaplan & Prato,
2016) that brought forward the perspective of both cyclists
and drivers. The scales measured: (i) attitudes toward the
environmental, health, economic and transport benefits of
cycling; (ii) perceptions of cyclist behavior while sharing the
road as an internal stimulus for positive reaction according
to the reciprocity principle; (iii) subjective social norms of
cycling tradition in the region; (iv) anxiety to share the road
because of the risk of cycling in mixed traffic, the fragility
of cyclists and the negative emotions for fear related to
incidents. It should be noted that, in line with the existing
literature, the focus is on the experience of sharing the road
as well as the perception of cycling and cyclists’ behavior
because cyclists are still a minority (Prati et al., 2017).
It should be noted that previous studies referred to
“cyclists” and “drivers” as two distinct populations according
to their preferred mode, habitual mode, assumed role with
respect to specific road incidents, or self-reported empathy
with a specific role (e.g., O’Connor & Brown, 2010; Heesch
et al., 2011; English & Salmon, 2016; Kaplan & Prato, 2016).
In contrast, this study deconstructs the cyclist–motorist
dichotomy to address the division and inequality it creates
because these two roles are not mutually exclusive. Evidence
exists that for the majority of the population the choice is
practical and relates to functional and situational conditions.
Kuhnimhof et al. (2012) showed increasing multimodal
choices among young adults in Germany and Great Britain
and commented that various transport modes can be used
across the same period in parallel with the same or varying
intensity, without the need to identify oneself as a “cyclist”
or a “driver”. Sigurdardottir et al. (2014) showed that the car
is strongly correlated with high-order emotional needs and
self-identity only for 12% of the population who identify as
4 S. KAPLAN ET AL.
car-enthusiasts, while 70% choose the car for practical rea-
sons and 18% are car-sceptics that recognise the functional
value of the car but give a lower importance to it. This study
views mode choice as a behavioral trend that can be
described along a continuous spectrum, namely a person can
at a certain moment cycle or drive and hence empathise
with either perspective. This view of multimodality might
seem trivial at a first glance, but the ability of road users to
identify and thus empathize with the perspective of other
road users has important implications regarding road
conflict mitigation and resolution and regarding the choice
of a proactive sharing solution versus aggressive or avoid-
ance coping strategy. The questionnaire items were phrased
so that the respondents could refer to them from both the
cyclist and driver perspectives.
The questionnaire items were accompanied by questions
eliciting information about: (i) travel habits including mode
choice, cycling purpose, and weekly cycling duration; (ii)
cycling experience in terms of cycling-friendly cities, cycling
during childhood, cyclist–motorist traffic incidents, cycling
on various types of infrastructure from dedicated cycle paths
in nature to cycling in mixed traffic; (iii) socioeconomic
characteristics including age, gender, education, employment,
and family status; (iv) residential location including region,
city, location in the city with respect to the core, type, and
city size.
For this exploratory study, the survey was advertised via
social networks, web forums, and the Civinet network
because of budget limitations. The snowball recruitment
reached over 1000 potential respondents, but of course the
convenience sample required to be corrected with a weight-
ing procedure. Information about the Czech population (e.g.,
gender, age, education, family composition, residence city)
was collected from the OECD databased and the Czech
Republic statistics bureau, while additional information
about the daily travel habits were collected from existing
literature (Fromel et al., 2009; Bruha & Bruhova-Foltynova,
2014). Although not perfect, the weighting procedure bal-
anced the convenience sample to a degree of representability
of the population.
2.2. Hybrid bivariate ordered probit model
Given the questionnaire items and the observable individual
characteristics, a hybrid model was formulated to test the
behavioral framework because of its ability to model simul-
taneously latent endogenous constructs, their relations to
observed exogenous variables, and their relations to the
willingness to share the road as drivers and cyclists. Weights
were calculated via Iterative Proportional Fitting from the
marginal probabilities given the sample and the population
proportions for gender, age, residential arrangement,
residential location, education, job, and daily travel habit
distribution.
The willingness to share the road as a driver and as a
cyclist was measured on a 5-point Likert scale from
“definitely not” to “definitely yes”, and hence two ordered
probit models were specified for the two dependent
variables. The willingness to share the road was then
expressed for both cases as a function of the respondents’
socioeconomic characteristics, habitual travel behavior,
attitudes toward cycling and e-cycling, and lower and
higher-order needs from the Alderfer’s model (1969).
As the respondent was the unit of analysis, the dependent
variables were likely correlated and the error terms for the
two models were assumed to capture common unobserved
factors that were related to the same respondent.
Accordingly, the error terms were assumed to follow a
bivariate normal distribution and the model was specified as
a bivariate-ordered probit model for calculating the probabil-
ities of the willingness to share the road as a driver and as a
cyclist. It should be noted that the multivariate probit
modeling methodology has been previously used in the
travel behavior and the traffic safety context (e.g., Emmerink
et al., 1996; Ferdous et al., 2010; Dias et al., 2017; Wang
et al., 2018).
The specification of the bivariate ordered probit model
considered both observable and latent variables related to
the survey respondents. Observable variables included the
sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents and
their habitual travel behavior, while latent variables included
attitudes, norms, and difficulties of cyclists and motorists
sharing the road. A latent variable model was specified with
measurement and structural equations, and then was jointly
estimated with the bivariate model to obtain a hybrid bivari-
ate ordered probit model. This implies that the sociodemo-
graphic characteristics and the habitual travel behavior
might have both a direct (as predictors of the two ordered
probit models) and an indirect (as predictors of the struc-
tural equations of the latent variables) effect on the willing-
ness to share the road as a cyclist and as a driver (Vij and
Walker, 2016).
Firstly, exploratory factor analysis retrieved the latent
traits and contributed to the specification of the measure-
ment equations of the latent variable model:
I n ¼ aX n þ tn ; (1)
where In is a vector of R indicators corresponding to the
survey answers of respondent n, Xn is a vector of L latent
traits of respondent n, a is a vector of R parameters to
be estimated, and tn is a vector of normally distributed
error terms with a mean vector of zeros and covariance
matrix Wt.
Secondly, the latent traits were related to the observed
variables in the specification of the structural equations of
the latent variable model:
X n ¼ cX n þ fn ; (2)
where Xn is a vector of L latent traits of respondent n, Xn
is a vector of K observed characteristics of respondent n, c is
a (L  K) matrix of parameters to be estimated, and fn is a
vector of normally distributed error terms with a mean
vector of zeros and covariance matrix W f .
The bivariate ordered probit model assumed the existence
of a partitioning of underlying continuous latent variables
that relate directly to the dependent variables (Dias et al.,
2017). Having defined the indices p and q and the total

number of categories P and Q for the two dependent varia-
bles, the two ordered probit models assumed the following
form:
fn ¼ bf X n þ bf X n þ en where fn ¼ p if dp1 < fn
< dp ; d0 ¼ 1; dP ¼ þ1;
gn ¼ bg X n þ bg X n þ gn where gn ¼ q if vq1 < gn
< vq ; v0 ¼ 1; vQ ¼ þ1
The variables fn and gn are the observed categories of the
willingness to share the road as a driver and as a cyclist,
while the variables fn and gn indicate the latent propensity
of a respondent n to be willing to share the road as a driver
and as a cyclist (the larger are the values of fn and gn ,
the higher is the propensity). The vectors bf, bf, bg, and
bg contain parameters to be estimated, the thresholds
dp partition fn in P categories, and the thresholds
vq partition gn in Q categories.
The random error terms en and gn of the two models were
assumed to be normally distributed and, without loss of gen-
erality and for identification purposes, the normal distribution
of the error terms was standardized (Dias et al., 2017) and a
joint bivariate standard normal distribution was assumed to
capture their correlation. The estimated parameters include
the elements of the vectors bf, bf, bg, and bg, the (P – 1)
thresholds dp (– 1 < d1 <  < dp <  < dP–1 < þ 1) and the
(Q – 1) thresholds vq (– 1 < v1 <  < vq <  < vQ–1 < þ 1).
The parameters were estimated by maximizing the log-
likelihood function and defining a binary indicator In ðp; qÞ
that was equal to 1 if respondent n chose category p for the
first dependent variables and category q for the second
dependent variable, and 0 otherwise.
The joint probability of respondent n having the willing-
ness to share the road as a driver and as a cyclist was
expressed as:
Prðfn ¼ p; gn ¼ qÞ ¼
¼ Prð dp1 < fn < dp and vq1 < gn < vq Þ ¼
¼ Prðdn;p1 < en < dn;p and cn;q1 < gn < cn;q Þ ¼
¼ U2 ðdn;p ; cn;q ; hÞ  U2 ðdn;p1 ; cn;q ; hÞ
 U2 ðdn;p ; cn;q1 ; hÞ þ U2 ðdn;p1 ; cn;q1 ; hÞ ;
where dn,p ¼ dp – bf Xn þ bf Xn, cn,q ¼ vq – bg Xn þ bg Xn,
U2 is the bivariate cumulative normal distribution function,
and h is a correlation parameter to be estimated. Given
that the model specification includes the latent variables
Xn, the joint probability required integration over their
distribution (Walker and Ben-Akiva, 2002; Vij and Walker,
2016):
Pr ðf n ¼ p; g n ¼ qÞ
ð and cyclists.
 
¼ U2 f n ¼ p; g n ¼ qX n ; X n ; bf ; bf ; bg ; bg ; dp ; vq ; h
X n
    avoid sharing the road in mixed traffic on major roads as
hI I n X n ; X n ; a; Wt hXn X n X n ; c; Wx dX n ;
where U2 ðÞ is the bivariate probability in Equation (4),
hI ðÞ is the distribution of the indicators, and hXn ðÞ is the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 5
distribution of the latent variables. The log-likelihood
function was then written as:
N X
X P X
Q
logL ¼ xn In ðp; qÞPrðfn ¼ p; gn ¼ qÞ; (7)
(3) n¼1 p¼1 q¼1
where xn is the weight of observation n as calculated from
the Iterative Proportional Fitting procedure.
The log-likelihood function was coded in PythonBiogeme
(4)
2.5 (Bierlaire, 2016) and the maximization of the function
was performed by simulation via 1000 draws from the
Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling algorithm (Hess
et al., 2006).
3. Results
3.1. Sample characteristics
The questionnaire collected 971 complete responses that
were 84.1% of the initial entries. Table 1 presents the socioe-
conomic characteristics for the respondents in the sample
and the population according to the aforementioned sources:
the Iterative Proportional Fitting procedure calculated the
weights xn for each observation by considering the marginal
probabilities over the 10 variables.
The sample required correction with the weighting
procedure because the recruitment via social media and
professional networks reached a higher number of cyclists
and a significantly higher proportion of men. Another factor
that required significant correction was the city dimension
as most of the sample answered from Prague or Brno. Aside
from cycling, the distribution of daily use of travel modes
was fairly in line with previous literature from the same
region (Bruha & Bruhova-Foltynova, 2014).
Table 2 presents the perceptions of the barriers to cycling
as well as the experience with (near) crashes as a driver or
as a cyclist. Interestingly, conflicts with other road users
were the second most prevalent issue after a very personal
one (sweating). From the supply side, respondents men-
tioned the fear of mixed traffic, lack of cycling paths and
(5)
lack of end-trip cycling facilities as the three most common
barriers. It should be noted that most cyclists among the
respondents had some experience in sharing the road, as
45% cycle in mixed traffic and 28% use cycle lanes. In order
to control for extreme perspectives, the questionnaire elicited
attitudes regarding the trade-offs between dedicated bicycle
infrastructure and parking offer. Most respondents preferred
cycle lanes for a scenario with a high volume of cyclists and
parking places for a scenario with a low volume of cyclists,
indicating that the respondents did not have extreme
views but have an awareness of the needs of both drivers
Table 3 shows the intentions to share the road as a cyclist
(6) and as a driver. Interestingly, most respondents would rather
either driver or cyclist, but a larger proportion would agree
to share the road in mixed traffic on minor roads, thus
showing the importance of road hierarchy, traffic volume
and speed in the decision to share the road.
6 S. KAPLAN ET AL.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Variable
Gender
Categories Male Female
Sample (%) 70.4 29.6
Population (%) 49.4 50.6
Age
Categories 15–24 years old 25–34 years old 35–44 years old 45–54 years old 55þ years old
Sample (%) 14.1 37.6 26.5 14.2 14.2
Population (%) 19.9 24.5 21.6 16.4 17.6
Living in
Categories Household with adults Household with children Other
Sample (%) 29.4 40.4 30.2
Population (%) 32.1 41.6 26.3
Employment status
Categories Only study Work and study Only work Neither work nor study
Sample (%) 7.5 14.8 74.5 3.2
Population (%) 5.6 11.0 57.7 25.7
Education
Categories Elementary High High with graduation Higher specialized University
Sample (%) 1.2 5.4 30.4 3.5 59.5
Population (%) 14.2 22.2 39.5 4.1 20.0
City size
Categories Below 10,000 10,000-30,000 30,000-50,000 50,000-100,000 Over 100,000
Sample (%) 10.4 6.9 4.2 8.2 65.3
Population (%) 49.2 8.2 12.2 10.5 19.9
Car use
Categories Daily 3–4 times per week 1–2 times per week Sometimes Rarely or never
Sample (%) 29.4 14.4 18.0 19.7 18.5
Population (%) 27.0 17.0 16.0 17.0 24.0
Transit use
Categories Daily 3–4 times per week 1–2 times per week Sometimes Rarely or never
Sample (%) 22.0 11.7 12.7 25.3 28.3
Population (%) 9.0 12.0 11.0 23.0 45.0
Bicycle use
Categories Daily 3–4 times per week 1–2 times per week Sometimes Rarely or never
Sample (%) 15.2 19.1 16.3 24.2 25.2
Population (%) 1.0 2.0 6.0 23.0 68.0
Walk
Categories Daily 3–4 times per week 1–2 times per week Sometimes Rarely or never
Sample (%) 49.5 12.9 10.9 18.2 8.5
Population (%) 48.0 16.0 11.0 10.0 14.0

Table 2. Cycling experience and difficulties with road sharing.

Item Categories (%)
INFRASTRUCTURE USE Countryside paths Separated city Cycle lanes Mixed traffic Mixed traffic Pedestrian areas
FOR CYCLING and cycle paths cycle paths in a city in a city outside a city and sidewalks Do not cycle
65.5 34.2 27.5 45.9 39.3 17.5 12.1
PREFERENCES WITH Prefer separated cycling Do not have a preference Prefer more parking spots
LOW infrastructure to more to separated cycling
CYCLIST VOLUME parking spots infrastructure
20.9 21.9 57.2
PREFERENCES WITH Prefer separated cycling Do not have a preference Prefer more parking spots
HIGH infrastructure to more to separated cycling
CYCLIST VOLUME parking spots infrastructure
55.3 15.6 29.1
PERCEIVED ISSUES Do not like Lack of cycle Fear of Lack of trip Distance to Hilly terrain Infrastructure
WITH BICYCLE cycling paths/lanes mixed traffic end facilities work or school design
COMMUTING (P. 1)
7.7 38.4 36.1 35.4 24.0 22.8 33.1
PERCEIVED ISSUES Lack of Social norm Physical Sweating Conflicts with No access No problem
WITH BICYCLE maintenance and peer condition drivers/pedestrians to bicycle
COMMUTING (P. 2) skills pressure
3.7 4.5 8.2 37.7 17.4 3.4 13.0
(NEAR) Yes, as Yes, as No crash
CRASH EXPERIENCE a cyclist a driver experience
32.5 16.1 56.4

Before model estimation, exploratory factor analysis (via reliability with Cronbach’s Alpha equal to 0.815, and the
Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation) verified that sample had very good adequacy to factor analysis with
the four hypothesized factors emerged from the data. Initial Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index equal to 0.936. Further analysis
analysis showed that the items had very good internal confirmed the existence of four factors on the basis of the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 7

Table 3. Intentions to share the road.

Willingness to share the road Definitely not Most likely not Maybe Most likely yes Definitely yes
AS A DRIVER ON A MAJOR ROAD 30.9 28.7 11.3 15.3 13.7
AS A CYCLIST ON A MAJOR ROAD 41.2 29.5 10.0 10.3 9.1
AS A DRIVER ON A MINOR ROAD 5.5 8.7 10.9 28.5 46.4
AS A CYCLIST ON A MINOR ROAD 7.8 8.9 12.8 28.8 41.7

Table 4. Rotated factor matrix.

Factors
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Riding a bicycle is healthy 0.728 0.404 –0.105 0.043
Riding a bicycle is good for the environment 0.788 0.482 –0.019 –0.002
Riding a bicycle reduces congestions 0.789 0.567 –0.158 –0.035
Bicycle is an affordable transport mode 0.635 0.427 –0.076 0.071
Riding a bicycle is fun 0.660 0.471 –0.226 –0.011
Cycling is an important sport/recreational activity 0.600 0.352 –0.113 0.068
Bicycle is a pragmatic mean of transport 0.731 0.574 –0.148 0.036
Cyclists should have their own infrastructure 0.219 0.041 0.476 0.051
Bicycles are too slow/fragile to be used on the road –0.378 –0.491 0.643 0.059
Cyclists have the same right to use the road as cars 0.585 0.610 –0.426 –0.086
Cyclists on the road slow the traffic down (R) 0.436 0.604 –0.430 –0.107
Cyclists and cars can share the same roads (R) –0.518 –0.560 0.584 –0.024
Cyclists usually make way for drivers 0.484 0.676 –0.227 –0.025
Cyclists do not respect traffic lights (R) 0.470 0.656 –0.165 0.065
Cyclists drive in wrong direction on one-way streets (R) 0.242 0.493 –0.099 0.031
Cyclists usually signal their left/right turns with their hands 0.454 0.661 –0.126 0.158
Cyclists usually avoid cycling in the middle of the lane 0.369 0.462 –0.104 0.067
Most people want to share the roads without conflicts 0.181 0.223 –0.033 0.360
Most of the cyclists try not to block the traffic 0.542 0.798 –0.308 0.095
Most of the people do not mind the cyclists on the road 0.270 0.491 –0.372 0.315
Cyclists are usually respectful toward the drivers 0.495 0.778 –0.299 0.128
Drivers drive carefully around cyclists –0.269 –0.168 0.035 0.417
Most of the people can ride a bicycle 0.377 0.395 –0.056 0.359
There is a strong cycling tradition 0.307 0.227 –0.033 0.324
Most of the children are taught to ride a bicycle 0.157 0.092 0.034 0.421
I know a lot of people who cycle 0.473 0.360 –0.043 0.278
There is a lot of recreational cyclists 0.362 0.218 –0.065 0.261
As a driver I am/would be afraid to drive around cyclists –0.154 –0.347 0.661 0.050
I am afraid of cyclists-motorist accidents –0.044 –0.228 0.578 0.002
Riding a bicycle in mixed traffic is hazardous –0.322 –0.470 0.804 –0.033
As a driver I am/would be afraid of hitting a cyclist –0.117 –0.334 0.709 0.059
I am afraid to cycle in mixed traffic –0.141 –0.182 0.796 –0.122
I feel anxious sharing the road –0.035 –0.067 0.731 –0.160
Drivers are used to cyclists on the road –0.032 0.017 –0.096 0.450
If there were more cyclists on the roads, drivers would get used to them 0.542 0.630 –0.460 –0.045
There are fewer disputes between drivers and cyclists in cities with many cyclists 0.520 0.582 –0.300 0.017
Cyclists do unexpected manoeuvres because they lack experience with driving or riding on the road (R) 0.266 0.551 –0.269 0.084
Cyclists do not know how to behave on the road because they do not have a driving license (R) 0.341 0.627 –0.280 –0.002
Drivers forget about cyclists on the road (R) 0.463 0.363 –0.038 –0.370
(R) – Reversed coding in the case of negatively phrased items; bold – highest factor loading for each item.

interpretability of the solution and the parsimony of the
model: the rotated factor matrix of the solution is presented
in Table 4. The four factors were named “positive attitudes
toward cycling” (factor 1), “positive attitudes toward cyclist
behavior” (factor 2), “anxiety to share the road” (factor 3),
and “social norms toward cycling” (factor 4). The relations
between items and factors served as input to for the
measurement equations in the hybrid bivariate ordered
probit model.
3.2. Model estimation results
Following the exploratory factor analysis, the best model
combined the specification of the measurement equations
according to the factor analysis results with the best specifi-
cation of the structural and the ordered probit equations.
The latter was achieved via an iterative procedure aimed at
finding the best model fit while offering the highest model
interpretability, and having parameters associated with
observed and latent variables relevant to the willingness to
share the road significant at the 0.10 level.
The best model is presented in the following tables:
Table 5 presents the estimates of the measurement
equations, Table 6 illustrates the structural equations relating
the four latent traits to the observed characteristics of
the respondents, and Table 7 shows the estimates of the
bivariate ordered probit model expressing the willingness to
share the road on major roads as a driver and as a cyclist as
a function of both observed and latent variables. The log-
likelihood of the presented model is equal to –619.40, the
adjusted McFadden rho-square is equal to 0.532, and likeli-
hood ratio tests reveal that the model is to be preferred to a
bivariate model without latent variables (LRT ¼ 43.56, df ¼ 7,
p ¼ 0.000) as well as two separate models for the willingness
8 S. KAPLAN ET AL.

Table 5. Measurement equations of the latent constructs for the hybrid bivariate ordered probit model.
Estimated t-stat
Positive attitudes toward cycling
Riding a bicycle is healthy 1.000 –
Riding a bicycle is good for the environment 1.067 24.31
Riding a bicycle reduces congestions 1.112 25.33
Riding a bicycle is fun 0.833 21.09
Cycling is an affordable transport mode 0.930 22.30
Cycling is an important sport/recreational activity 0.855 20.51
Bicycle is a pragmatic mean of transport 0.967 21.50
Positive attitudes toward cyclist behavior
Cyclists have the same right to use the road as cars 1.000 –
Cyclists on the road slow the traffic down –0.958 –16.48
Cyclists usually make way for drivers 0.838 15.60
Cyclists do not respect traffic lights –0.914 –16.66
Cyclists drive in the wrong direction on one-way streets –0.739 –13.76
Cyclists usually signal their left/right turns with their hands 0.797 14.53
Most of the cyclists try not to block the traffic 1.200 18.85
Most of the people do not mind the cyclists on the road 0.902 15.81
Cyclists are usually respectful toward the drivers 1.121 17.33
If there were more cyclists on the roads, drivers would get used to them 1.173 19.09
There are fewer disputes between drivers and cyclists in cities with many cyclists 0.921 16.14
Cyclists do unexpected manoeuvres because they lack experience with driving or riding on the road –0.817 –14.61
Cyclists do not know how to behave on the road because they do not have a driving license –0.825 –14.45
Anxiety to share the road
Cyclists should have their own infrastructure 1.000 –
Bicycles are too slow/fragile to be used on the road 2.916 7.13
Cyclists and cars can share the same roads –3.017 –6.71
As a driver I am/would be afraid to drive around cyclists 2.771 6.96
I am afraid of cyclists-motorist accidents 2.414 7.17
Riding a bicycle in mixed traffic is hazardous 3.595 7.19
As a driver I am/would be afraid of hitting a cyclist 2.957 7.64
I am afraid to cycle in mixed traffic 2.866 7.64
I feel anxious sharing the road 2.400 7.01
Social norms toward cycling
Most people want to share the roads without conflicts 1.000 –
Most of the people can ride a bicycle 2.223 8.04
There is a strong cycling tradition 1.612 7.70
Most of the children are taught to ride a bicycle 2.020 7.80
I know a lot of people who cycle 2.212 7.84
There are a lot of recreational cyclists 1.980 7.88
The estimates of the constants and the covariance matrix elements are omitted for brevity.

to share the road as a driver or as a cyclist (LRT ¼ 105.49,
df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.000). The correlation between the error terms
shows also that the bivariate model is the preferred specifica-
tion as it is equal to 0.652 and it is significantly different
from zero at the 0.01 confidence level.
3.3. The relation between TPB constructs and individual
characteristics
Travel habits are significantly related to all the TPB traits. Very
frequent use of the bicycle for either commuting or recreational
purposes is positively associated with positive attitudes toward
both cycling and cyclists’ behavior and with the formation of
social norms toward cycling. Conversely, the relation is nega-
tive with the formation of anxiety to share the road. These
findings are in line with the observation by Kaplan et al.
(2015) that both utilitarian and recreational cycling relate to
favourable cycling attitudes and norms. Interestingly, cycling
for commuting purposes is related to the anxiety in sharing the
road unlike cycling for recreation, possibly because the latter is
more flexible in terms of route choices to avoid traffic.
Interestingly, very frequent use of the car is also related
positively to having positive attitudes toward cycling and
cyclists’ behavior, and negatively to feeling anxiety to share
the road. These findings suggest that the hypothesis of
looking at travellers as multimodal, rather than fomenting
the dichotomy between drivers and cyclists, is likely the
correct way as experience with both contributes to a positive
view of cycling. Very frequent of using public transport is
related only to attitudes toward cyclists’ behavior, and the
sign of the relation is negative, perhaps because one can be
seen as substitute for the other.
Having experienced cycling during childhood reinforces
social norms toward cycling, while having experienced
(near) crashes has a negative relation to positive attitudes
toward cyclist behavior and a positive relation to the anxiety
of road sharing if the crash was experienced as a driver. On
a positive note, previous crash experience does not associate
adversely with positive attitudes and social norms toward
cycling.
The perceived barriers to cycling are also related to the TPB
constructs. Personal barriers to cycling (e.g., distance, hilliness,
fitness, enjoyment) are related to a lesser agreement with
cycling positive attitudes and social norms, while infrastructure
barriers to cycling (e.g., poor infrastructure, lack of cycle lanes
and paths, conflicts with road users) are linked to the anxiety
of road sharing. Interestingly, both barrier types are associated
negatively with the perception of cyclist behavior.
The socioeconomic characteristics play a role as well.
Both living in small and large cities (with respect to an
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 9

Table 6. Structural equations of the latent constructs for the hybrid bivariate ordered probit model.
Est. t-stat
Positive attitudes toward cycling
Constant 0.401 5.93
Male –0.340 –4.33
Age lower than 34 years old 0.307 2.07
Age between 35 and 54 years old 0.219 2.09
Living in a household with children 0.172 1.99
Living in a city with less than 10,000 inhabitants 0.276 3.20
Living in a city with more than 100,000 inhabitants 0.209 1.76
Very frequent car use 0.091 2.36
Very frequent bicycle use 0.202 2.16
Using bicycle for commuting 0.375 3.21
Using bicycle for recreation or sport 0.169 2.18
Distance from work/school/activities is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.188 –2.32
Lack of cycle lanes and paths is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.207 –2.75
Lack of interest or enjoyment is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.450 –3.25
Peer pressure and social norms are perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.311 –2.18
Positive attitudes toward cyclist behavior
Constant 0.346 5.97
Male –0.172 –2.77
Age under 34 years old –0.176 –2.52
Living in a household with children 0.137 2.13
Very frequent car use 0.143 2.12
Very frequent transit use –0.163 –2.62
Very frequent bicycle use 0.145 4.03
Using bicycle for commuting 0.369 2.14
Using bicycle for recreation or sport 0.641 3.38
Experience with (near) crash as a cyclist –0.164 –2.78
Experience with (near) crash as a driver –0.576 –7.66
Hilly terrain is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.206 –3.04
Lack of cycle lanes and paths is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.142 –2.33
Lack of interest or enjoyment is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.413 –3.32
Anxiety of cycling in mixed traffic is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.159 –2.47
Conflicts with drivers and pedestrians are perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.207 –3.16
Positive attitudes toward cycling 0.445 8.49
Social norms toward cycling 2.110 4.48
Anxiety to share the road
Constant 0.053 2.02
Male –0.081 –3.23
Age under 34 years old –0.200 –2.51
Living in a household with children 0.052 2.09
Very frequent car use –0.061 –2.34
Very frequent bicycle use –0.195 –4.15
Using bicycle for commuting –0.068 –1.96
Experience with (near) crash as a driver 0.112 4.12
Distance from work/school/activities is perceived as a barrier to cycling 0.050 1.98
Lack of cycle lanes and paths is perceived as a barrier to cycling 0.059 2.47
Poor infrastructure design is perceived as a barrier to cycling 0.073 3.05
Anxiety of cycling in mixed traffic is perceived as a barrier to cycling 0.245 7.24
Conflicts with drivers and pedestrians are perceived as a barrier to cycling 0.110 4.02
With a low number of cyclists, I would prefer increased parking spaces –0.068 –2.49
With a high number of cyclists, I would prefer dedicated cycling infrastructure –0.061 –2.41
Positive attitudes toward cyclist behavior –1.390 –4.22
Social norms toward cycling –2.606 –2.39
Social norms toward cycling
Constant 0.117 2.56
Male –0.115 –3.10
Living in a city with less than 10,000 inhabitants 0.176 2.56
Living in a city with more than 100,000 inhabitants –0.128 –2.35
Very frequent bicycle use 0.147 2.92
Using bicycle for commuting or recreation 0.142 2.78
Experience with cycling as a child 0.255 3.49
Distance from work/school/activities is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.094 –2.47
Lack of cycle lanes and paths is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.106 –1.98
Hilly terrain is perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.076 –2.06
Conflicts with drivers and pedestrians are perceived as a barrier to cycling –0.115 –2.02
With a high number of cyclists, I would prefer dedicated cycling infrastructure 0.082 2.27

average size between 10,000 and 100,000 inhabitants) relates
to positive attitudes toward cycling, while the relation is
positive for the former and negative for the latter when it
comes to the formation of social norms. In other words,
having positive attitudes toward cycling in a larger city does
not translate in having norms about cycling. Living in a
household with children is related to positive attitudes
toward cycling and cyclists’ behavior, but also higher anxiety
of sharing the road.
From a gender perspective, women have on the one hand
stronger positive attitudes toward cycling and cyclists’ behav-
ior, as well as higher perception of the existence of cycling
10 S. KAPLAN ET AL.

Table 7. Estimates of the hybrid bivariate ordered probit model. and lower anxiety to share the road, while positive attitudes
Estimate t-stat toward cycling in general are related to the willingness to
Willingness to share the road as a driver share the road as a driver and as a cyclist both directly and
Living in a household with children –0.220 –1.83
Living in a city with more than 100,000 inhabitants –0.212 –1.84
indirectly (via the relation with positive attitudes toward cyc-
Using the bicycle for commuting or recreation 0.270 1.92 list behavior). Notably, three latent traits have a comparable
Very frequent bicycle use 0.179 2.20 direct effect on the willingness to share the road as a driver
Positive attitudes toward cycling 0.348 5.56
Positive attitudes toward cyclist behavior 0.777 14.16 and as a cyclist, while social norms have a positive relation
Anxiety to share the road –0.897 –14.91 to the willingness to share the road as a driver. Secondly,
Social norms toward cycling 0.097 1.86 the relation is not merely a direct one either between the
d1 –1.008 –7.29
d2 0.103 0.75 observed variables and the willingness to share the road.
d3 0.585 4.24 While using the bicycle frequently and for both commuting
d4 1.291 9.33 and recreation seems to increase the intention of sharing the
Willingness to share the road as a cyclist
Living in a household with children –0.263 –2.15 road from both perspectives, the opposite is observed for
Using the bicycle for commuting or recreation 0.371 2.96 living in a household with children that appears to reduce
Very frequent car use 0.217 2.14 the desire of sharing the road from both perspectives.
Very frequent bicycle use 0.406 2.16
Experience with (near) crash as a cyclist –0.195 2.00 Differences exist in terms of living in a large city, which
Experience with (near) crash as a driver –0.205 1.87 relates negatively only to the willingness to share the road as
Positive attitudes toward cycling 0.440 7.13
Positive attitudes toward cyclist behavior 0.422 7.44
a driver, and using the car frequently, which relates posi-
Anxiety to share the road –0.787 –13.09 tively only to the intention to share the road as a cyclist.
v1 –1.994 –14.31 Interestingly, being a frequent bicycle and car user relates
v2 –0.802 –5.77
v3 –0.272 –1.96
positively to the willingness to share the road as a cyclist,
v4 0.430 3.09 again suggesting that the perspective of shared responsibility
Correlation of the error terms as multimodal travellers appears as the one leading to the
H 0.652 6.66
desire to share the road (and, in turn, to more cycling).
When looking at the number of common variables (both
social norms. Women appear also, on the other hand, more observed and latent) that are significantly related to both
anxious than men to share the road. These findings agree equations expressing the willingness to share the road, and
with existing literature on favourable attitudes toward looking at the strong correlation between the error terms, it
cycling being stronger for women (Kaplan et al., 2015), male is clear that there is not a dichotomy in wanting to share
cyclists being less afraid of traffic and less prone to cycling the road as either driver or cyclist. Clearly, there are both
avoidance while having more propensity to cycle in mixed observed and latent factors that affect the willingness to
traffic (Chataway et al., 2014), and women being more likely share the road while the respondents consider only the cir-
to report safety concerns, driver aggression and cycling cumstances to determine whether they are drivers or cyclists.
avoidance (Garrard et al., 2008).
An interesting aspect is that there exist relations between
4. Discussion and conclusions
the latent constructs themselves, namely positive attitudes
and social norms toward cycling in general are related to This study brings forward attitudes, norms and difficulties
positive attitudes toward cyclist behavior, while the latter underlying the willingness to share the road as a driver and
and the social norms are associated with lower anxiety to a cyclist while deviating from the harsh rhetoric regarding
share the road. These findings suggest a mediating effect of “road wars” between cyclists and drivers to promote instead
some latent constructs when considering the relations with a view of shared responsibility. This study takes the multi-
the willingness to share the road. modality perspective and recognizes that the same road user
can relate to both perspectives because being a driver or a
cyclist is related to circumstances. The chosen Czech case-
3.4. The relation between TPB constructs and willingness
study represents an emerging cycling region characterised by
to share the road
growing cycling enthusiasm and lack of cycling infrastruc-
As aforementioned, most respondents were willing to share ture that brings to sharing the road between cyclists and
the road on minor roads as both drivers and cyclists, and motorists. Nevertheless, the behavioral framework and
hence the model focused on the willingness to share the the model follow the TPB as a general human behavior
space on major roads. A couple of considerations apply to paradigm.
the estimates of the hybrid bivariate ordered probit model The results confirm with an advanced weighted model
for both parts related to the driver and the cyclist perspec- that psychological barriers are paramount in forming posi-
tive on sharing the road. tive attitudes toward cycling and cyclists’ behavior, forming
Firstly, the relation is not merely a direct one between social norms toward cycling, mitigating anxiety in mixed
the TPB traitsand the willingness to share the road, as the traffic, and improving the experience of sharing the road.
aforementioned structural equations show that some con- While the anxiety of road sharing is mainly associated with
structs act as mediators. Social norms toward cycling are in perceived infrastructure gaps and lacunas, pro-cycling
fact related to both positive attitudes toward cyclist behavior attitudes and norms are related to personal barriers that are

related to self-perceptions (e.g., abilities, competencies). The
anxiety to share the road is a strong psychological barrier
that surpasses the positive effect of positive attitudes and
norms, as shown by the stronger relation between anxiety
and willingness to share the road from both the driver’s and
the cyclist’s perspective.
The results show the importance of the social climate in
improving the experience of sharing the road. Both the anx-
iety and the willingness to share the road can be bettered by
improving positive attitudes toward cyclists’ behavior, miti-
gating actual conflicts among drivers and cyclists, and form-
ing positive attitudes and social norms. Another important
result concerns social inequity, as women reported stronger
agreement with statements related to the anxiety of sharing
the road, and thus are less willing to cycle in mixed traffic.
The results support multifaceted solutions to the problem
of encouraging the willingness to share the road in urban
environments. Specifically, the results support the idea that
providing dedicated cycling infrastructure is important, but
its implementation needs to be part of a “safe system”
approach, namely a holistic approach addressing individual
and social barriers by providing mutually synergetic social,
institutional, infrastructure, and policy solutions. Moreover,
the “safe system” approach should be part of a wider sus-
tainable mobility vision, because the results show that travel
habits, perceived personal barriers, regional effects, and
infrastructure barriers affect the experience of sharing
the road.
The results support the idea that safety is a shared
responsibility as the willingness to share the road while driv-
ing or cycling is correlated and both are driven by the same
underlying factors, led by the anxiety of sharing the road,
but also by the frequency with which respondents cycle and
drive. When cycling or driving in mixed traffic, road users
share the same anxiety, and the aggressive interactions or
cycling avoidance reported in previous studies are possibly
the result of ill-coping mechanisms with the feeling of anx-
iety. This study shows that the anxiety related to driving in
mixed traffic is equally important to the anxiety of cycling
in mixed traffic and both should be considered seriously.
The idea of shared responsibility, in this case, concerns also
conflicts between cyclists and drivers and the perception of
cyclists’ behavior. Conflicts between road users and illegal
manoeuvres not only are dangerous, but also increase the
overall tension. Considerate behavior mitigates the tension
and thus indirectly contributes to the willingness of all road
users to share the road in mixed traffic. The shared respon-
sibility approach is also manifested through the perceived
importance of cycling lanes for regulating cycling in mixed
traffic.
The results suggest that emerging cycling regions could
become cycling-friendly and that sustainable mobility
solutions allowing people to overcome their psychological
barriers to cycling could increase bicycle mode shares. The
findings from this study suggest that proactive policy direc-
tions could aim at measures and campaigns promoting
multimodal and sustainable transport solutions as an integral
part of the trip chain. Infrastructure solutions could include
well-designed bicycle paths along urban roads in a network
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 11
that allow continuity along axes with major commuting
flows. Multimodality would include widespread, well
maintained, and easy to use bike-sharing systems, promoting
the integration of bicycle and public transport as well as
park-and-cycle in the inner city, and offering employer-
based incentives to sustainable transport. Campaigns could
focus on shared responsibility with an emphasis on the
social inclusion of all road users, empathy, kindness, conflict
mitigation and awareness that every road user is a driver, a
cyclist and a pedestrian at the same time. Campaigns
increasing visibility such as cycling marathons, bike-to-work
initiatives and bike-to-school programs should aim at
generating an inclusive ambience where everyone can join
and cycle, creating a sense of shared vision, togetherness and
social inclusion. An example is the “Denmark cycling togeth-
er” approach that includes: (i) design of attractive and pleas-
ant bicycle infrastructure; (ii) extensive cycling infrastructure
along main corridors with prioritised accessibility to main
city attractions; (iii) the “bike to work” and “all kids bike”
campaigns that contribute to togetherness through termin-
ology and gamification; (iv) the view of the bicycle as an
integral part of the transport system alongside public trans-
port, cars, and taxis; (v) soft and compassionate communica-
tion promoting a shared vision of sustainable mobility.
Limitations should be acknowledged in that the sample
was recruited via word of mouth and was not representative
of the Czech population. However, weights were used in the
model to make the sample reflect the population and hence
the findings are informative because of the weighting
procedure and the rigorous econometric procedure that
produced unbiased parameter estimates (Wooldridge, 2009).
Moreover, further research could investigate the role of pol-
lution in the willingness to share the road in light of recent
findings about bicycle lanes at least marginally reducing the
exposure to pollutants (Hatzopoulou et al., 2013).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of two
anonymous reviewers who commented on earlier versions of
the manuscript.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behaviour. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human
needs. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142–175.
Bassett, D. R., Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Thompson, D. L., & Crouter,
S. E. (2008). Walking, cycling, and obesity rates in Europe, North
America, and Australia. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 5,
795–814.
Bierlaire, M. (2016). PythonBiogeme: ia short introduction. Report
TRANSP-OR 160706, Series on Biogeme. Transport and Mobility
Laboratory, School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique F
ed
erale de Lausanne, Switzerland.
Boufous, S., de Rome, L., Senserrick, T., & Ivers, R. (2012). Risk factors
for severe injury in cyclists involved in traffic crashes in Victoria,
Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 49, 404–409.
Bruha, J., & Bruhova-Foltynova, H. (2014). Active travel in Prague: The
role of age, gender and education in a heterogeneous population.
12 S. KAPLAN ET AL.
Presented at the 2014 Joint Cluster Meeting “Evolving Perspectives
on Sustainability and Security in Transport”, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Chataway, E. S., Kaplan, S., Nielsen, T. A. S., & Prato, C. G. (2014).
Safety perceptions and reported behavior related to cycling in
mixed traffic: A comparison between Brisbane and Copenhagen.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
23, 32–43.
Chaurand, N., & Delhomme, P. (2013). Cyclists and drivers in road
interactions: A comparison of perceived crash risk. Accident;
Analysis and Prevention, 50, 1176–1184.
Cycling Embassy of Denmark (2012). Collection of cycle concepts: A
revision and update of the collection of cycle concepts published by the
Danish Road Directorate in 2000. Retrieved from http://www.cycling-
embassy.dk/2013/08/01/cycle-concepts2012/, Rounborg Grafiske Hus,
Holstebro, Denmark.
Czech Government (2013). National strategy for development of cycling
transport in the Czech Republic for the years 2013–2020 (in Czech).
Government of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.
Daley, M., & Rissel, C. (2011). Perspectives and images of cycling as a
barrier or facilitator of cycling. Transport Policy, 18, 211–216.
Daley, M., Rissel, C., & Lloyd, B. (2007). All dressed up and nowhere
to go? A qualitative research study of the barriers and enablers to
cycling in inner Sydney. Road & Transport Research, 16, 42–52.
Dias, F. F., Lavieri, P. S., Garikapati, V. M., Astroza, S., Pendyala,
R. M., & Bhat, C. R. (2017). A behavioral choice model of the use
of car-sharing and ride-sourcing services. Transportation, 44,
1307–1323.
Doorley, R., Pakrashi, V., & Ghosh, B. (2015). Quantifying the health
impacts of active travel: Assessment of methodologies. Transport
Reviews, 35, 559–524.
Emmerink, R. H., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., & van Ommeren, J. N.
(1996). Variable message signs and radio traffic information: An
integrated empirical analysis of drivers’ route choice behaviour.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 30, 135–153.
English, P., & Salmon, P. (2016). New laws, road wars, courtesy and
animosity: Cycling safety in Queensland newspapers. Safety Science,
89, 256–262.
Ferdous, N., Eluru, N., Bhat, C. R., & Meloni, I. (2010). A multivariate
ordered-response model system for adults’ weekday activity episode
generation by activity purpose and social context. Transportation
Research Part B: Methodological, 44, 922–943.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012). Barriers and facili-
tators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
15, 686–698.
Fromel, K., Mitas, J., & Kerr, J. (2009). The associations between active
lifestyle, the size of a community and SES of the adult population in
the Czech Republic. Health & Place, 15, 447–454.
Garrard, J., Rose, G., & Lo, S. K. (2008). Promoting transportation
cycling for women: The role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive
Medicine, 46, 55–59.
Gatersleben, B., & Appleton, K. M. (2007). Contemplating cycling to
work: Attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 302–312.
Hatzopoulou, M., Weichenthal, S., Dugum, H., Pickett, G., Miranda-
Moreno, L., Kulka, R., … Goldberg, M. (2013). The impact of traffic
volume, composition, and road geometry on personal air pollution
exposures among cyclists in Montreal, Canada. Journal of Exposure
Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 23, 46–51.
Heesch, K. C., Sahlqvist, S., & Garrard, J. (2011). Cyclists’ experiences
of harassment from motorists: Findings from a survey of cyclists in
Queensland, Australia. Preventive Medicine, 53, 417–420.
Hess, S., Train, K. E., & Polak, J. W. (2006). On the use of a Modified
Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a
mixed logit model for vehicle choice. Transportation Research Part
B: Methodological, 40, 147–163.
Jones, T. (2012). Getting the British back on bicycles: The effects of
urban traffic-free paths on everyday cycling. Transport Policy, 20,
138–149.
Joshi, M. S., Senior, V., & Smith, G. P. (2001). A diary study of the risk
perceptions of road users. Health, Risk & Society, 3, 261–279.
Kaplan, S., Manca, F., Nielsen, T. A. S., & Prato, C. G. (2015).
Intentions to use bike-sharing for holiday cycling: An application of
the Theory of Planned Behavior. Tourism Management, 47, 34–46.
Kaplan, S., & Prato, C. G. (2015). A spatial analysis of land use and
network effects on frequency and severity of cyclist-motorist crashes
in the Copenhagen region. Traffic Injury Prevention, 16, 724–731.
Kaplan, S., & Prato, C. G. (2016). “Them or Us”: Perceptions,
cognitions, emotions, and overt behavior associated with cyclists and
motorists sharing the road. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 10, 193–200.
Kaplan, S., Vavatsoulas, K., & Prato, C. G. (2014). Aggravating and
mitigating factors associated with cyclist injury severity in Denmark.
Journal of Safety Research, 50, 75–82.
Krautov
a, Z., & Librov
a, H. (2009). Household consumption and the
individualization process from an environmental perspective (in
Czech). Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech
Republic.
Krizek, K. J., & Roland, R. W. (2005). What is at the end of the road?
Understanding discontinuities of on-street bicycle lanes in urban set-
tings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
10, 55–68.
Kuhnimhof, T., Armoogum, J., Buehler, R., Dargay, J., Denstadli, J. M.,
& Yamamoto, T. (2012). Men shape a downward trend in car use
among young adults: Evidence from six industrialized countries.
Transport Reviews, 32, 761–779.
Lawson, A. R., Ghosh, B., & Pakrashi, V. (2015). Quantifying the
perceived safety of cyclists in Dublin. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers – Transport, 168, 290–299.
Lawson, A. R., Pakrashi, V., Ghosh, B., & Szeto, W. Y. (2013).
Perception of safety of cyclists in Dublin City. Accident; Analysis
and Prevention, 50, 499–511.
Lugo, A. E. (2013). CicLAvia and human infrastructure in Los Angeles:
Ethnographic experiments in equitable bike planning. Journal of
Transport Geography, 30, 202–207.
Marqu
es, R., Hern
andez-Herrador, V., Calvo-Salazar, M., &
Garc
ıa-Cebri
an, J. A. (2015). How infrastructure can promote
cycling in cities: Lessons from Seville. Research in Transportation
Economics, 53, 31–44.
Meng, M., Koh, P. P., Wong, Y. D., & Zhong, Y. H. (2014). Influences
of urban characteristics on cycling: Experiences of four cities.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 13, 78–88.
Mu~ noz, B., Monzon, A., & Lois, D. (2013). Cycling habits and other
psychological variables affecting commuting by bicycle in Madrid,
Spain. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2382, 1–9.
Murphy, E., & Usher, J. (2015). The role of bicycle-sharing in the city:
Analysis of the Irish experience. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 9, 116–125.
Oakil, A. T. M., Ettema, D., Arentze, T., & Timmermans, H. (2016).
Bicycle commuting in the Netherlands: An analysis of modal shift
and its dependence on life cycle and mobility events. International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10, 376–384.
O’Connor, J. P., & Brown, T. D. (2010). Riding with the sharks: Serious
leisure cyclist’s perceptions of sharing the road with motorists.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13, 53–58.
Oke, O., Bhalla, K., Love, D. C., & Siddiqui, S. (2015). Tracking global
bicycle ownership patterns. Journal of Transport & Health, 2, 490–501.
Parkin, J., Wardman, M., & Page, M. (2007). Models of perceived
cycling risk and route acceptability. Accident; Analysis and
Prevention, 39, 364–371.
Paschalidis, E., Basbas, S., Politis, I., Prodromou, M. (2016). “Put the
blame on … others!”: The battle of cyclists against pedestrians and
car drivers at the urban environment. A cyclists’ perception study.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
41, 243–260.
Pattinson, W., & Thompson, R. G. (2014). Trucks and bikes: Sharing
the roads. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 125, 251–261.

Prati, G., Puchades, V. M., & Pietrantoni, L. (2017). Cyclists as a
minority group? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology
and Behaviour, 47, 34–41.
Sagaris, L., & Ortuzar, J. D. (2015). Reflections on citizen-technical
dialogue as part of cycling-inclusive planning in Santiago, Chile.
Research in Transportation Economics, 53, 20–30.
Schepers, P., Twisk, D., Fishman, E., Fyhri, A., & Jensen, A. (2017).
The Dutch road to a high level of cycling safety. Safety Science, 92,
264–273.
Sigurdardottir, S. B., Kaplan, S., & Møller, M. (2014). The
motivation underlying adolescents’ intended time-frame for driving
licensure and car ownership: a socio-ecological approach. Transport
Policy, 36, 19–25.
Tapp, A., Davis, A., Nancarrow, C., & Jones, S. (2016). Great Britain
adults’ opinions on cycling: Implications for policy. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 89, 14–28.
Titze, S., Merom, D., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (2014). Epidemiology of
cycling for exercise, recreation or sport in Australia and its contribu-
tion to health-enhancing physical activity. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 17, 485–490.
Vandenbulcke, G., Dujardin, C., Thomas, I., de Geus, B., Degraeuwe,
B., Meeusen, R., & Int Panis, L. (2011). Cycle commuting in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 13
Belgium: Spatial determinants and ‘re-cycling’ strategies.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45, 118–137.
Vandenbulcke, G., Thomas, I., & Int Panis, L. (2014). Predicting cycling
accident risk in Brussels: A spatial case–control approach. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 62, 341–357.
van Wee, B., & B€ orjesson, M. (2015). How to make CBA more suitable
for evaluating cycling policies. Transport Policy, 44, 117–124.
Vij, A., & Walker, J. (2016). How, when and why integrated choice and
latent variable models are latently useful. Transportation Research
Part B: Methodological, 90, 192–217.
Vrtalov
a, J. (2009). Czechs ride a bike (in Czech). Proceedings of the
Cyklokonference. Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Walker, J., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2002). Generalized random utility model.
Mathematical Social Sciences, 43, 303–343.
Wang, Y., Li, L., & Prato, C. G. (2018). The relation between working
conditions, aberrant driving behaviour and crash propensity among
taxi drivers in China. Accident Analysis and Prevention, doi:10.1016/
j.aap.2018.03.028.
Wegman, F., Zhang, F., & Dijkstra, A. (2012). How to make more cycling
good for road safety? Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 44, 19–29.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern
approach (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.