Bus drivers and their interactions with cyclists: An analysis of minor conflicts

Abstract

Driving a bus in a city is a challenging task as it demands paying attention to changing conditions (e.g., weather, congestion) while interacting with passengers and other road users who sometimes display unpredictable behaviours. Cyclists play an important role in these interactions. This paper investigates how cyclists are perceived by bus drivers and how conflicts arising from their daily interactions shape the attitudes of bus drivers. A total of 639 bus drivers (4% of the workforce, 91% males) working in Santiago de Chile responded an online survey. The survey asked drivers about their perception of other transport modes, their experience with traffic collisions and the conflicts they have had with cyclists. Later, logistic regression models were estimated, using "coexistence with cyclists" as the dependent variable. The findings show that younger and older drivers have a better perception of cyclists compared to middle-aged ones. Negative experiences with cyclists worsen the perception of coexistence with cyclists; meanwhile, previous cycling experience was unrelated to drivers' perceptions. The results also suggest that existing norms are perceived as ineffective. Finally, gender was not statistically significant in shaping bus drivers' perception of cyclists, yet this topic requires further attention as the composition of the public transport labour force is changing.

Full text

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
2590-1982/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Bus drivers and their interactions with cyclists: An analysis of
minor conicts
Rodrigo Mora
a
,
*
, Natan Waintrub
b
, Cristhian Figueroa-Martinez
c
a
Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo Universidad de Chile. Portugal 84, Santiago centro, Santiago 8331051, Chile
b
Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable (CEDEUS), Ponticia Universidad Cat´
olica de Chile, Los Navegantes 1963, Providencia, Santiago 7520246, Chile
c
Departamento de Planicaci´
on y Ordenamiento Territorial, Facultad de la Construcci´
on y Ordenamiento Territorial, Universidad Tecnol´
ogica Metropolitana (UTEM),
Dieciocho 390, Santiago 8330526, Chile
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Bus drivers
Cyclists
Perception
Road behaviour
Latin America
ABSTRACT
Driving a bus in a city is a challenging task as it demands paying attention to changing conditions (e.g., weather,
congestion) while interacting with passengers and other road users who sometimes display unpredictable be-
haviours. Cyclists play an important role in these interactions. This paper investigates how cyclists are perceived
by bus drivers and how conicts arising from their daily interactions shape the attitudes of bus drivers. A total of
639 bus drivers (4% of the workforce, 91% males) working in Santiago de Chile responded an online survey. The
survey asked drivers about their perception of other transport modes, their experience with trafc collisions and
the conicts they have had with cyclists. Later, logistic regression models were estimated, using “coexistence
with cyclists” as the dependent variable. The ndings show that younger and older drivers have a better
perception of cyclists compared to middle-aged ones. Negative experiences with cyclists worsen the perception of
co-existence with cyclists; meanwhile, previous cycling experience was unrelated to drivers’ perceptions. The
results also suggest that existing norms are perceived as ineffective. Finally, gender was not statistically signif-
icant in shaping bus drivers’ perception of cyclists, yet this topic requires further attention as the composition of
the public transport labour force is changing.
1. Introduction
Bus drivers play a fundamental role in the operation of public
transport systems. However, the stressful nature of this task mean that
drivers have worse-than-average health indicators (John et al., 2006).
Magnusson et al. (1996) assert that bus drivers commonly suffer from
illnesses (e.g., high blood pressure) and pains (e.g., back pain) that affect
their wellbeing. Meanwhile, Useche et al., (2017a) add that they also
tend to display a high prevalence of sedentary behaviours and over-
weight, particularly among Latin American countries. Often leading to
high levels of absenteeism, early retirements, and high turnover
(Kompier, 1996), such issues seem to be caused by a combination of
unhealthy working environments and the demanding nature of their
labour (Han and Zhao, 2020). Bus drivers make decisions in dynamic
road conditions (e.g., weather, congestion) while interacting with pas-
sengers and road users who display different—and sometimes unpre-
dictable—behaviours, including pedestrians and, especially, cyclists
(Chaparro et al., 2020; Han and Zhao, 2020).
In recent decades, cycling has increased signicantly worldwide due
to policies that have promoted its practice (Pucher and Buehler, 2017).
However, this sharp increase has been accompanied by a growing
number of accidents involving cars and buses (Balkmar, 2018). This is
the case of Santiago de Chile, where 104 cyclists perished in clashes
involving buses between 2017 and 2021, representing 26.9 % of all
cyclist fatalities in that ve-year period (Rimbaud, 2023). The literature
has tended to focus on the study of clashes reported to police such as
cyclist injuries and cycling fatalities (Utriainen et al., 2023), yet has put
little attention to small-scale, non-fatal conicts or near misses (Aldred,
2016). These latter conicts are recurrent, although they are rarely re-
ported to authorities (De Rome et al., 2014). Near-miss conicts are
thought to partly explain why, in car-dominated environments, cycling
is perceived as a threatening activity (Aldred and Goodman, 2018). This
paper aims to collaborate with this discussion.
This article assesses how cyclists are perceived by bus drivers and
how conicts arising from daily interactions shape bus drivers’ attitudes
towards cyclists. It seeks to enrich the discussion on small-scale
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rodrigomora@uchile.cl (R. Mora), nwaintrub@uc.cl (N. Waintrub), cagueroa@utem.cl (C. Figueroa-Martinez).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/transportation-
research-interdisciplinary-perspectives
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101074
Received 31 October 2023; Received in revised form 14 February 2024; Accepted 18 March 2024

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
2
interactions and conicts between cyclists and bus drivers that can be
crucial to understand their perceptions and behaviours (Aldred, 2016;
Aldred and Goodman, 2018) and collaborate with the Latin American
literature that is still limited. The few existing works suggest that bus
drivers feel compelled to respect the law while observing cyclists dis-
obeying (Mora et al., 2024). To do so, the article reports the ndings of a
set of questionnaires in which bus drivers were invited to answer
questions related to their perceptions and daily experiences. The data
gathered was analysed with relevant statistics and used to estimate a
logistic regression model.
Excluding this introduction, the article has ve sections. Section 2
explores relevant literature and, more specically, the works that have
addressed bus drivers and the conicts they have with cyclists. Section 3
provides further details of the methods employed and the case of study
(Santiago de Chile). Section 4 contains the main results and Section 5 the
discussion. An additional section, Section 6, includes the main conclu-
sions and the limitations of the research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Bus driving
Bus drivers tend to experience several mental issues resulting from
continuous stress and fatigue. Stress is a common and well-discussed
problem affecting bus drivers’ wellbeing (Chen and Hsu, 2020; Evans
and Carr`
ere, 1991; Dorn et al., 2010; Useche et al., 2017a), and is often
associated with the need to manage concurrent and demanding tasks,
such as paying attention to moving cars, pedestrians and road conditions
and the needs of passengers (Han and Zhao, 2020). Fatigue is also a
widespread problem. Drivers often work extended hours, many have
unusual shifts (e.g., night shifts), and some suffer from sleeping disor-
ders (Davidovi´
c et al., 2018). Fatigue affects drivers’ mood (Davidovi´
c
et al., 2018), which can be worsened by harsh environmental conditions
(e.g., humidity), poor treatment from passengers, and can cause lapses,
errors and violations (Parker et al., 1995; Tiznado et al., 2014; Xiang-
long et al., 2018). The lack of recovery time between shifts has been
associated with risky behaviours (Useche et al., 2017b), and a higher
risk of suffering anxiety and mood disorders (Lin et al., 2023). Fatigue,
stress and mood disorders often lead to trafc crashes that may have
serious impact on the passengers and other road users such as cars,
buses, cyclists and pedestrians (Samerei et al., 2021; Useche et al.,
2017a). The stress caused by multitasking has been pointed out as the
cause of 1.6 million crashes and 330,000 injuries globally (Peters and
Stavrinos, 2017). Meanwhile, driver fatigue seems to cause 20 % to 50 %
of all road accidents (Davidovi´
c et al., 2018).
In numerous low and middle-income countries, bus drivers’ wages
depend on the number of passengers being moved (i.e., war for the fare,
see Díaz et al., 2004; Johnson, 2005), often driving malfunctioning buses
(Ebrahimi et al., 2017) and across poorly kept roads (Iles, 2005). Those
issues add new layers of difculty to an already complex job, and further
affect bus drivers’ performance (D’Souza and Maheshwari, 2012).
Despite the efforts to “professionalise” driver’s labour (Brunet, 2011;
Bowen, 2017), many drivers working in low and middle-income coun-
tries lack the right skills or training to manage passengers and other road
users’ demands, such as pedestrians, car users and cyclists (Iles, 2005).
This may lead to errors or violations (e.g., stopping at undesignated bus
stops, violating trafc signals, distracted driving) that are likely to
generate conicts and risky situations for other users of the streets
(Wang et al., 2015).
2.2. Bus drivers and cyclists
The available body of work has shown that bus drivers feel, to
different degrees, uncomfortable interacting with cyclists (Baumann
et al., 2012), especially when they have to share roads with them. In
those circumstances, risky behaviours, such as overtaking a cyclist at
less than 1.5 m, are frequent and can result in accidents (De Ceunynck
et al., 2017; Transport for London, 2011). Indeed, accidents involving
buses and cyclists are twice as likely to be severe than crashes involving
smaller cars (Asgarzadeh et al., 2016) and often do not occur at in-
tersections. An Australian study showed that three out of ve accidents
between cyclists and buses occur away from intersections and are
“angular accidents” where a cyclist is hit by the lateral movement of a
bus (Ker et al., 2005). The same study indicated that angular and rear-
end accidents are particularly dangerous for cyclists.
The general sense of discomfort towards cyclists may be exacerbated
by personality traits of bus drivers (Mallia et al., 2015). Indeed, atten-
tion has been paid to how personality traits, such as risk tolerance,
tension or stress, can be related to risky behaviours and can lead to a
higher number of trafc violations (Dahlen et al., 2005; Taubman-Ben-
Ari and Yehiel, 2012; ¨
Ozkan et al., 2006; Useche et al., 2017a; Burns and
Wilde, 1995) and collisions (Useche et al., 2019). Some authors indicate
that clashes are more likely to occur if the bus driver is male (Rimbaud,
2023) and others add that social attitudes (e.g., anxiety, excitement-
seeking or aggression) mediate personality traits that lead to risky be-
haviours (Mallia et al., 2015; Ajzen, 2011). Furthermore, it has been
suggested that motivation and working conditions play a signicant role
in shaping driving styles (Taubman-Ben-Ari and Skvirsky, 2016; Fort
et al., 2016). Four types of driving styles have been identied: (i)
reckless and careless, associated with systematic and deliberate viola-
tions, (ii) anxious, associated with high levels of stress and excessive
tension, (iii) hostile, associated with permanent anger and hostile atti-
tudes towards other roads users, and, (iv) patient and careful, or good
drivers who are capable of managing internal and external demands
while driving (Useche et al., 2017b).
2.3. Cyclists’ safety
There is evidence that suggests that the conditions of the streets are
associated with the odds of cyclists being involved in an accident. Aldred
and colleagues (2018) show that higher trafc volumes are associated
with higher odds of cycling injury. Those authors also point out that
lowering trafc speed from 30 mph (48 km/hr.) to 20 mph (32 km/hr.)
reduces the odds of a cycling injury by 31 %. The construction of
dedicated cycling infrastructure, which reduces the interaction between
cyclists and motorists, has proven to signicantly diminish cycling fa-
talities (Schepers et al., 2017). However, cycle paths tend to be scarce in
middle and low-income countries (Thomas and De Robertis, 2013),
unevenly distributed and discontinuous (Tiznado-Aitken et al., 2022;
Mora et al., 2021), affecting cyclists’ behaviour and posing important
risks for them (Useche et al., 2021a; Mora et al., 2024). Residential
streets are also associated with lower odds of accidents with motorized
vehicles than non-residential streets. Nevertheless, street intersections
represent a greater risk of clashes for cyclists (Aldred et al., 2018).
Moreover, no matter to the road conditions, and if dealing with
motorised vehicles is unavoidable, cyclists try to keep a safe distance
from vehicles to protect themselves ( ¨
Ozkan and Lajunen, 2005).
Failing to acknowledge their vulnerability, cyclists often perform
dangerous behaviours that may result in clashes with motorised vehi-
cles, pedestrians, or other cyclists (Useche et al., 2022). Risky behav-
iours include crossing a street when the trafc lights are red (Johnson
et al., 2011; Fraboni et al., 2018), zigzagging between vehicles on mixed
lanes (Useche et al., 2021b), or cycling on bus-only lanes (Mora et al.,
2024), among others. Some evidence from the US suggests that between
15 % and 20 % of clashes and accidents are related to cyclists’ violations
(Osland et al., 2012; Boston Police Department, 2019). Several studies
show that gender and age play a signicant role in the prevalence of
reckless behaviours. Male or younger cyclists tend to be more prone to
engage in risky behaviours than female or older peers (Bernhoft and
Carstensen, 2008; Wang et al., 2020). The “type” of cyclist is also related
to accidents, as frequent commuters tend to perform more violations and
errors than non-commuting peers (Useche et al., 2021a).
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
3
Lastly, little is known about how bus drivers can make cycling safer.
The scant evidence suggests that bus drivers employ strategies (e.g.,
gestures, hand movements, eye contact) to establish communication
with cyclists (Baumann et al., 2012). Such strategies help them to be
understood by cyclists and motorists but can also be confusing and
misinterpreted as hostile actions (Baumann et al., 2012).
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Overview of Santiago de Chile
Santiago has been described as a “laboratory of public transport
policies” where the implementation of a new system by 2007 (Trans-
antiago) sought to eradicate many of the problems that affect the ma-
jority of Latin American public transport systems (Mu˜
noz and
Gschwender, 2008). The new system had, however, a complex imple-
mentation and required additional measures. Over the last fteen years,
the subway network has grown at an unprecedented pace, decreasing
the pressure on bus services (DTPM, 2021). Buses have been consistently
modernised; the majority of them are now electric and include amenities
like Wi-Fi and air conditioning (DTPM, 2021). Following the positive
outcomes of novel experiences (Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo
[BID] and Ministerio de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones [MTT],
2019), there have been signicant efforts to integrate more women who,
by 2022, represent 5.7 % of the total number of drivers (Leal, 2022).
Some issues that affect drivers’ labour have, however, remained unre-
solved. Some bus services are long and rival the extension of those of the
previous system. The infrastructure dedicated to buses is still discon-
tinuous. Most bus rapid transit corridors are incomplete and end in
narrow and congested streets where buses lose any time they may have
gained through their route (Figueroa-Martínez, 2013). Located on the
right side of the streets according to the direction of the trafc, bus-
priority lanes are commonly invaded by taxis (which are legally
allowed to use them), as well as cars and cyclists (which are not). Such
priority lanes also have issues in highly demanded avenues where buses
from different services are unable to overtake those that are taking
passengers.
The inequalities from which the city suffers also create challenges for
drivers. Most of the dense periphery created by public housing policies is
connected with the rest of the city only through bus services that, in peak
hours, have high frequencies (less than three minutes in some services)
and are still overcrowded (Figueroa et al., 2018). A large portion of jobs
and services are concentrated in the historic district and its nancial
expansion to the northeast (the wealthiest part of the city), leading to
rush hours that, in the periphery, start when natural light is scant (be-
tween 5:00 and 6:00 am). Moreover, the explosive increase in the use of
bicycles has not been accompanied by the construction of appropriate
infrastructure (Mora et al., 2021; Tiznado-Aitken et al., 2022). The
majority of the existing cycling infrastructure is located in the city centre
and the wealthy northeast, whereas rest of the city has few or poorly
designed cycling paths (Mora et al., 2021).
3.2. Design
To reach the aims outlined earlier, this article reports the ndings of
a survey in which the organization “Bicicultura” (a bicycle advocacy
association) invited bus drivers to explore their experiences when
travelling across Santiago de Chile. The survey included questions about
the participants: (i) sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender)
(ii) previous experience as a cyclist and a bus driver in the public
transport system (iii) characteristics of the bus service operated (e.g.,
communes crossed, use of bus preferential infrastructure), (iv) percep-
tion of other transport modes, and (v) experience and perceived expo-
sure to trafc collisions, conicts, violence and fatalities with other
transport modes.
The survey was distributed by Bicicultura in collaboration with Buses
Vule; one of the six bus companies operating in Santiago. As Fig. 1 il-
lustrates, the services provided by the company cross twenty communes
of the city that, excluding the historic district, have limited cycling
infrastructure. None of the services of Vule enter or cross the northeast
that, in addition of being the most afuent part of the city, has a dense
and well-connected network of cycle paths. The company recruited 639
bus drivers that worked in the company in 2021, representing 4.1 %
(15.670) of the universe of bus drivers (Directorio de Transporte Público
Metropolitano [DPTM], 2021). The participants were mostly male (91.5
%), yet in a slightly lower proportion compared to the universe of male
bus drivers in the city (94.3 %). In terms of age, most bus drivers were 35
to 64 years old (77.9 %); less than a fth were between 22 and 34 years
old (17.2 %), and only a few were 65 years old or older (4.9 %). Though
related to age, only 54.6 % of the participants drove a bus in the previous
transport system, which, as mentioned earlier, ceased to operate in
2007.
3.3. Conceptual model
Fig. 2 illustrates the conceptual model followed during the analysis
of the data. It summarises the body of work discussed in the previous
sections and, particularly, three dimensions that consistently emerged as
relevant to understand bus drivers’ coexistence with cyclists:
i) Drivers’ expertise is linked to the changing road conditions they
face and the need to perform numerous manoeuvres to avoid and
manage conicts with other road users.
ii) Perceptions of cyclists that are associated with complex in-
teractions such as conicts and collisions on the road.
iii) Urban factors, such as inadequately designed infrastructure,
poorly maintained roads, and not well-known trafc laws that
can amplify the challenges of driving.
All those factors are, in addition, considered to be inuenced by bus
drivers’ age and gender.
3.4. Analysis
The analysis was made using the software IBM SPSS (version 29),
which was employed to calculate the frequency, mean, median, mode,
standard deviation and interquartile range. All the variables were cat-
egorical. In addition, to test the associations between all the variables,
the Cramer’s V statistic was estimated, where 1 implies full correlation,
but values of 0.4 or higher are considered to have a relatively strong
association (Kotrlik and Williams, 2003). In order to examine the rela-
tionship between the variable of interest, chi-square tests were esti-
mated to obtain the relationship between the bus drivers’ perception of
the “coexistence with cyclists” and other variables (see Table 1). The
most relevant relationships were candidates to be included in the
multivariate logistic regression with “coexistence with cyclists” as the
dependent variables. All estimated models were checked for multi-
collinearity with the Variance Ination Factor (VIF), keeping in the
model structure only variables that resulted in VIF <2. Several models
were calculated, but the nal model had only signicant attributes and
the lowest AIC values.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics
A summary of the descriptive statistics for all the variables is shown
in Table 1. The driver’s evaluation of the coexistence with cyclists is
mostly regular to negative. In terms of driving expertise and experience,
signicant associations with the variable coexistence with cyclists exist
when the bus driver nds that the most stressful periods of the day are
before morning rush hour, off-peak, and night hours. Most drivers have
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
4
cyclist experience, which also has a high association with coexistence
with cyclists. Other variables with high association with cyclist’s coex-
istence are having a relative or friend that is a cyclist, seeing a cyclist
using the bus-only road, and the frequency of disagreement with cy-
clists. In relation to manoeuvres, those that have a greater association
with the dependent variable are overtaking cyclists while respecting the
mandatory 1.5 m gap, waiting for cyclist’s zigzag movements when
moving at trafc lights, and seeing them when turning on a junction. No
trafc accident-related variable was associated with the coexistence
with cyclists, but, in the occurrence of a violent encounter, a signicant
association exists between cyclists’ verbal attacks and scratching on the
bus; or no previous experience of violence with cyclists. Fig. 3 shows
some of these conicts.
In terms of driver’s perception about cyclists, signicant associations
include those when the bus driver believes that:
i) Cyclist and buses can share the road.
ii) There is a conict between bus drivers and cyclists for using the
right side of the road that has worsened over time.
iii) Cyclists hate bus drivers.
iv) Cyclists’ reckless behaviour is frequently the cause of trafc ac-
cidents and fatalities.
v) Bus drivers are frequently responsible of trafc accidents that
involve cyclists.
vi) Sharing the road with cyclists is complex but not impossible, and
only requires proper attention.
Other factors (with a signicant association with coexistence with
cyclists) that may explain the conicts with cyclists are the perception of
cyclists’ reckless attitudes/behaviours and their lack of empathy with
bus drivers. Variables that were explored but not included here include
bus routes that have roads with bus-only lanes, feeling stressed when
driving, and believing that cyclists and bus drivers have a good coexis-
tence. These variables have no signicant association or are greatly
correlated with coexistence with cyclists and were therefore discarded.
The association between all variables was obtained using Cramer’s V
measure (Table 2). To avoid multicollinearity, variables with a strong
association were not included in the models. These variables include:
i) Bus driver without experiences of violence with cyclists is associated
with the frequency of disagreements and been a victim of verbal
aggressions.
ii) Not being involved in a trafc accident is associated with been a
victim of a trafc accident.
4.2. Coexistence with cyclist’s model
The results of the logistic regression model are shown in Table 3. The
dependent variable “coexistence with cyclists” has three levels (positive,
neutral and negative), with “neutral” set as the reference parameter to
ease the interpretation of the results. The overall model was statistically
signicant
χ
2(32) = 240.18,p<0.001 (Nagelkerke R2=0.366), and
correctly classied 63.1 % of the cases.
Fig. 1. Bus services of the company Vule and cycling infrastructure in Santiago Source: authors’ own.
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
5
The following factors had greater odds of beings associated with
positive perceptions of the coexistence with cyclists (in parenthesis is the
direction of the effect):
Sociodemographic
● Bus driver age (+).
Driving expertise and experience
● The bus driver considers the period before morning rush hour to be
stressful (-).
● The bus driver had seen cyclists using bus-only lanes (-).
● The bus driver had experienced difculties overtaking cyclists while
leaving the mandatory space of 1.5 m (-).
● The bus driver had experienced of verbal aggressions from cyclists (-)
Perceptions of cyclists
● The bus driver believes that cyclists and buses can share the road (+).
The following factors had greater odds of being associated with
negative perceptions of coexistence with cyclists:
Sociodemographic
● Bus driver age (-).
Driving expertise and experience
● The bus driver considers the period before morning rush hour to be
stressful (-).
● The bus driver had experience as a driver of the previous public
transport system (-).
● The bus driver had seen cyclists using bus-only lanes (+).
● The bus driver had experienced difculties seeing cyclists when
turning at a junction (-).
● Frequency of disagreements with cyclists (-).
● The bus driver had experienced verbal aggressions from cyclists (+).
Perception of cyclists
● The bus driver believes cyclists hate bus drivers (+).
Urban factors
● Lack of specic norms that regulates the coexistence between cyclists
and bus drivers (-).
5. Discussion
Bus drivers believe that the norms regulating the coexistence be-
tween cyclists and bus drivers are missing, yet many norms have been
created and updated in the last ve years (e.g., motorised vehicles
minimum overtaking distance between cyclists, mandatory reective
elements for riding a bike, see MTT, 2018). The results suggest that
existing norms have been, so far, unsuccessful in mediating the emer-
gence of conicts between cyclists and bus drivers, possibly because of
road users are unaware of them. However, systematic reviews on trafc
education have revealed knowledge of trafc laws does not necessarily
mean less clashes (Abkari et al., 2021; Fausto et al., 2021). Likewise, bus
drivers may consider the existing norms useless in impeding cyclists’
minor and major violations of trafc laws, such as the use of bus-only
lanes or sidewalks by cyclists—both frequent behaviours in Santiago
(GFK, 2017; Mora et al., 2024); or failing to use front and rear bicycle
lights and reective elements (e.g., clothing, accessories), both of which
are also mandatory in Chile. For instance, a recent study of more than
1,200 cyclists in Santiago showed that 61 % did not have or use front
and rear bicycle lights, and 13 % inappropriately crossed a junction
when the trafc lights were red (Mutual de Seguridad—No Chat, 2021).
Another research from Santiago that studied the behaviours of 1,700
cyclists showed that 66 % ride on the sidewalks (GFK, 2017), a possible
Fig. 2. Conceptual model of coexistence with cyclists Source: authors’ own.
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
6
Table 1
Descriptive statistics summary of the collected data Source: authors’ own.
Variable Levels Mean Std.
Deviation
Median Mode Interquartile
range
Pearson Chi-square
(association with
dependent variable)
Q1 Q3 Value p
Dependent variable: Coexistance with
cyclist
1. Good or
very good
2. Regular
3. Bad or
very bad
2.40 0.71 3 3 2 3 - -
Sociodemographic
Gender 1: Male
2: Female
1.08 0.28 1 1 1 1 7.236 0.027 *
Age (years) 1. 22 to 34
2. 35 to 44
3. 45 to 54
4. 55 to 64
5. 65 to 80
2.75 1.13 3 3 2 4 40.662 <.001 *
Driving expertise and experience
Stressful periods for
driving
Before morning rush hour 1: Yes
2: No
1.84 0.37 2 2 2 2 12.794 0.002 *
Morning rush hour 1.42 0.49 1 1 1 2 0.724 0.696
Off-peak 1.90 0.30 2 2 2 2 11.772 0.003 *
Afternoon rush hour 1.25 0.43 1 1 1 2 5.013 0.082
Night 1.82 0.38 2 2 2 2 1.737 0.42 *
The bus driver has
experience:
Driving experience in the previous public
transport system
1: Yes
2: No
1.45 0.50 1 1 1 2 2.715 0.257
Cyclist experience 1.62 0.49 2 2 1 2 36.791 <.001 *
A relative or friend that is a cyclist 1.27 0.45 1 1 1 2 6.321 0.042 *
Seen cyclists using the bus-only lane 1.05 0.22 1 1 1 1 27.94 <.001 *
Frequency of disagreements with cyclists 1: Very rare
2:
3:
4:
5: Very
frequent
3.19 1.32 3 3 2 4 53.927 <.001 *
Manouvres that are
problematic with
cyclists
Overtake cyclists leaving the mandatory
space of 1.5 metres
1: Yes
2: No
1.53 0.50 2 2 1 2 7.096 0.029 *
Wait until cyclist exit the bus stop area to
approach
1.47 0.50 1 1 1 2 2.195 0.334
Wait until cyclists nish doing zigzag
movements when the trafc light is green
1.51 0.50 2 2 1 2 15.667 <.001 *
See cyclists overtaking the bus I drive 1.61 0.49 2 2 1 2 1.337 0.512
See cyclists riding beside the right side of
the bus
1.54 0.50 2 2 1 2 1.298 0.522
Seen them when turning on a junction 1.46 0.50 1 1 1 2 15.798 <.001 *
Drive at 20 km/hr behind a cyclist on the
road lane
1.46 0.50 1 1 1 2 1.634 0.442
Trafc accidents Victim of a trafc accident 1: Yes
2: No
1.65 0.48 2 2 1 2 3.255 0.196
A cyclist was involved in the trafc
accident
1.85 0.36 2 2 2 2 5.81 0.055
Not being involved in a trafc accident 1.45 0.50 1 1 1 2 3.482 0.175
In a violent encounter,
the reaction of cyclists
was
Verbal aggressions 1: Yes
2: No
1.49 0.50 1 1 1 2 82.845 <.001 *
Ambushed (the bus or driver) 1.83 0.37 2 2 2 2 1.62 0.445
Hit the bus 1.84 0.37 2 2 2 2 5.349 0.069
Scratch the bus 1.87 0.34 2 2 2 2 6.857 0.032 *
Physically assault the bus driver 1.95 0.22 2 2 2 2 0.788 0.674
No experience of violence 1.74 0.44 2 2 1 2 48.449 <.001 *
Other factors Bus drivers’ stress and fatigue 1: Yes
2: No
1.64 0.48 2 2 1 2 4.11 0.128
Speeding 1.79 0.41 2 2 2 2 4.872 0.088
Perceptions of cyclists
Believes that Cyclist and buses can share the road 1: Yes
2: No
1.33 0.47 1 1 1 2 3.545 0.17 *
There is a conict between bus drivers and
cyclists for using the right side of the road
that has worsened over time
1.40 0.49 1 1 1 2 23.437 <.001 *
Cyclists are a nuisance 1.72 0.45 2 2 1 2 4.133 0.127
Cyclists hate bus drivers 1.47 0.50 1 1 1 2 35.838 <.001 *
Cyclists’ reckless behaviour is frequently
the cause of trafc accidents and fatalities
1.24 0.43 1 1 1 1 14.239 <.001 *
Bus drivers are frequently responsible of
trafc accidents that involve cyclists
1.79 0.41 2 2 2 2 7.337 0.026 *
Sharing the road with cyclists is complex
but not impossible, and it only requires
proper attention
1.36 0.48 1 1 1 2 11.681 0.003 *
Other factors Cyclists’ reckless attitudes/behaviour 1: Yes
2: No
1.37 0.48 1 1 1 2 9.6 0.008 *
Cyclists’ neglect in the use of bicycle lights
and reective clothing
1.40 0.49 1 1 1 2 0.217 0.897
(continued on next page)
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
7
consequence of an unequal distribution of cycling infrastructure (Mora
et al., 2021; Tiznado-Aitken et al., 2022).
Two recent studies from Santiago show that cyclists see the inter-
action with bus drivers as a complicated matter and perceive them, as
well as taxi drivers, as the most problematic actors they encounter on the
streets (DATAVOZ, 2019; Mora et al., 2024). However, there is room for
improvement in this complicated relationship. The results of this work
indicated that when a bus driver thinks the road can be shared with
cyclists, s/he is 101 % more likely to have a positive evaluation of the
coexistence with cyclists. This may suggest that, for drivers with a
positive view on sharing the road, interacting with cyclists is a part of
their daily routines. Such nding also supports recent initiatives
implemented by the Ministry of Transport in Santiago de Chile that aim
to stimulate empathy with cyclists by inviting bus drivers to ride a static
bike while they are being overtaken in close proximity by a bus (Labo-
ratorio de Cambio Social, 2015).
Bus drivers’ manoeuvres and conicts with cyclists also inuence
their perception of co-existence. Evidence collected in several British
cities suggests that overtaking cyclists is a very problematic manoeuvre
for drivers of large vehicles and even more complex for public transport
buses that go across congested streets or bus-only lanes (Walker, 2007).
It is also a very common and dangerous manoeuvre for cyclists (Walker,
2007). For example, a study from London found that vehicles overtaking
cyclists was the single greatest cause of cyclists’ fatalities (TFL 2005).
According to the ndings, bus drivers experiencing difculties with
overtaking and other complex manoeuvres increase the probability of
having a negative evaluation of the coexistence with cyclists. These
ndings are in line with the conclusions reported recently by Mora et al
(2024) who point out that buses overtaking and turning at junctions
could also lead to conicts for cyclists in Santiago.
On the other hand, the ndings show that as verbal aggressions and
violent encounters with cyclists become less frequent, the chances of
having a negative perception of the coexistence with cyclists are also
reduced. Nevertheless, if a cyclist has verbally attacked a bus driver, it is
less likely that s/he will have a positive evaluation of the coexistence
with people on bikes. Bus drivers with negative attitudes towards
Table 1 (continued )
Variable Levels Mean Std.
Deviation
Median Mode Interquartile
range
Pearson Chi-square
(association with
dependent variable)
Q1 Q3 Value p
Cyclists’ lack of empathy with bus drivers 1.54 0.50 2 2 1 2 6.565 0.038 *
Bus drivers’ lack of empathy with cyclists 1.67 0.47 2 2 1 2 1.768 0.413
Urban factors
Factors that may
explain the conict
with cyclists
A law that regulates the coexistance
between transport modes that is not well
known
1: Yes
2: No
1.48 0.50 1 1 1 2 0.672 0.715
Bad design and lack of maintenance of
streets
1.40 0.49 1 1 1 2 2.489 0.288
Lack of trafc signs that regulate the
coexistance between modes
1.51 0.50 2 2 1 2 0.757 0.685
Too narrow road lanes to be shared 1.44 0.50 1 1 1 2 0.206 0.902
Problems with street light and weather 1.68 0.47 2 2 1 2 2.174 0.337
Lack of specic norms that regulates the
coexistence between cyclists and bus
drivers
1.49 0.50 1 1 1 2 0.322 0.851
* Signicant at 95% condence level.
Fig. 3. Some examples of conicts between bus drivers and cyclists (aerial schemes) Source: Authors’ own.
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
8
Table 2
Association between variables Source: authors’ own.
ID Variable name (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30)
Sociodemographic
(1) Gender 1
(2) Age (years) 0.17* 1
Driving expertise and experience
(3) Before morning rush hour 0.13* 0.04 1
(4) Morning rush hour 0.02 0.04 0.13* 1
(5) Off-peak 0.1* 0.11 0.32* 0.07 1
(6) Afternoon rush hour 0.07 0.04 0.12* 0.08* 0.1* 1
(7) Night 0.02 0.12* 0.11* 0.01 0.13* 0.11* 1
(8) Driving experience in the previous
public transport system
0.12* 0.36* 0.14* 0.02 0.14* 0.07 0 1
(9) Cyclist experience 0.09* 0.31* 0.13* 0.03 0.16* 0.02 0.01 0.03 1
(10) A relative or friend that is a cyclist 0.06 0.13* 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.24* 1
(11) Seen cyclists using the bus-only lane 0.05 0.1 0.16* 0.01 0.29* 0.04 0.04 0.09* 0.15* 0 1
(12) Frequent disagreements with cyclists 0.13* 0.09 0.17* 0.17* 0.17* 0.09 0.12 0.13* 0.05 0.12 0.11 1
(13) Overtake cyclists leaving the
mandatory space of 1.5 metres
0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.08* 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0 0.11 1
(14) Wait until cyclist exit the bus stop
area to approach
0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.08* 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.18* 1
(15) Wait until cyclists nish doing zigzag
movements when the trafc light is
green
0 0.1 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.12* 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.12* 0.04 0.22* 0.13* 0.15* 1
(16) See cyclists overtaking the bus I
drive
0.01 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.23* 0.23* 0.17* 1
(17) See cyclists riding beside the right
side of the bus
0.05 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.17* 0.3* 0.17* 0.37* 1
(18) Seen them when turning on a
junction
0.06 0.06 0.11* 0.01 0.05 0.03 0 0.02 0.08* 0.02 0.1* 0.06 0.14* 0.2* 0.15* 0.34* 0.28* 1
(19) Drive at 20 km/hr behind a cyclist on
the road lane
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08* 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.19* 0.14* 0.22* 0.14* 0.21* 0.28* 0.07 1
(20) Victim of a trafc accident 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09* 0.01 0.03 0.1* 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.13* 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.1* 0.05 0.08* 0.04 1
(21) A cyclist was involved in the trafc
accident
0.07 0.08 0.03 0.09* 0.03 0.03 0.08* 0.11* 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.24* 0.04 0.09* 0.09* 0.03 0.06 0.1* 0.09* 0.33* 1
(22) Not being involved in a trafc
accident
0.02 0.12* 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.09 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.08* 0.09* 0.02 0.53* 0.36* 1
(23) Verbal aggressions 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.1* 0.08* 0.05 0.04 0.09* 0.16* 0.01 0.13* 0.24* 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.11* 0.04 0.11* 0.12* 0.12* 0.15* 0.16* 1
(24) Ambushed (the bus or driver) 0 0.1 0.11* 0.05 0.14* 0.1* 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.09* 0.1* 0.18* 0.05 0.11* 0.08* 0.12* 0.14* 0.04 0.08* 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.05 1
(25) Hit the bus 0 0.16* 0 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.16* 0.1* 0.04 0.07 0.02 0 0.05 0.02 0.12* 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.02 1
(26) Scratch the bus 0.02 0.1 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.11* 0.1* 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.19* 0.01 0.09* 0.15* 0 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.05 0 0.01 0.24* 1
(27) Physically assault the bus driver 0.01 0.14* 0.02 0 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0 0.02 0.02 0.08* 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.15* 0.18* 1
(28) No experience of violence 0 0.02 0.09* 0.11* 0.11* 0 0.1* 0.09* 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.4* 0 0.08* 0.14* 0.06 0.05 0 0.12* 0.14* 0.17* 0.1* 0.56* 0.26* 0.24* 0.18* 0.04 1
(29) Bus drivers’ stress and fatigue 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.09* 0 0.02 0.13* 0.2* 0.18* 0.19* 0.13* 0.16* 0.14* 0.06 0.08* 0.09* 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.16* 0.15* 0.03 0.09* 1
(30) Speeding 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.08* 0.02 0.12* 0.09 0.06 0.1* 0.06 0.15* 0.17* 0.03 0.09* 0.09* 0.04 0.05 0 0.08* 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.26* 1
Perceptions of cyclists
(31) Cyclist and buses can share the road 0.12* 0.15* 0.09* 0.07 0.08 0.08* 0.09* 0.01 0 0.05 0.04 0.14* 0.08* 0 0.02 0.09* 0.11* 0.03 0.11* 0.04 0 0.07 0.01 0.11* 0.09* 0.01 0.03 0.09* 0.03 0.03
(32) There is a conict between bus
drivers and cyclists for using the
right side of the road that has
worsened over time
0.03 0.15* 0.1* 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.09* 0.06 0.04 0.31* 0.08* 0.09* 0.13* 0.14* 0.13* 0.08* 0.15* 0.06 0.1* 0.01 0.24* 0.12* 0.12* 0.09* 0.08 0.3* 0 0.03
(33) Cyclists are a nuisance 0.01 0.1 0.12* 0 0.14* 0.03 0.05 0.12* 0 0.07 0.11* 0.27* 0.02 0.08* 0.11* 0.01 0.09* 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.1* 0.03 0.09* 0.11* 0.1* 0.02 0.21* 0.08* 0.02
(34) Cyclists hate bus drivers 0.01 0.1 0.04 0.1* 0.05 0.1* 0.01 0.11* 0.1* 0.09* 0.1* 0.31* 0.06 0.02 0.14* 0.03 0.03 0 0.04 0.1* 0.16* 0.04 0.19* 0.03 0.09* 0.18* 0.02 0.23* 0.1* 0.06
(35) Cyclists’ reckless behaviour is
frequently the cause of trafc
accidents and fatalities
0.04 0.07 0.03 0.11* 0.04 0 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.11* 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.13* 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.14* 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.13* 0.01 0.02
(continued on next page)
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
9
Table 2 (continued )
ID Variable name (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30)
(36) Bus drivers are frequently
responsible of trafc accidents that
involve cyclists
0.1* 0.16* 0.18* 0.05 0.14* 0.08 0.02 0.1* 0.14* 0.04 0.18* 0.15* 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.12* 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.11* 0.09* 0.18*
(37) Sharing the road with cyclists is
complex but not impossible, and it
only requires proper attention
0.07 0.08 0.01 0.09* 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.08* 0.05 0.21* 0.1* 0.05 0.09* 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.11* 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.11* 0.08 0.09* 0.05 0.08*
(38) Cyclists’ reckless attitudes/
behaviour
0.04 0.15* 0.13* 0.03 0.11* 0.12* 0.06 0.06 0.08* 0.1* 0.08* 0.12 0.19* 0.21* 0.27* 0.21* 0.18* 0.09* 0.1* 0.05 0 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.12* 0.05 0.01 0.11* 0.01
(39) Cyclists’ neglect in the use of
bicycle lights and reective
clothing
0.01 0.07 0.19* 0.11* 0.09* 0.1* 0.02 0.11* 0 0.01 0.05 0.19* 0.13* 0.17* 0.13* 0.15* 0.14* 0.21* 0.14* 0.01 0.02 0.06 0 0.1* 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.1* 0.26* 0.19*
(40) Cyclists’ lack of empathy with bus
drivers
0.01 0.12* 0.08* 0.04 0.09* 0.06 0.07 0.09* 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.25* 0.15* 0.16* 0.2* 0.14* 0.15* 0.15* 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.11* 0.01 0.16* 0.15* 0.01 0.09* 0.28* 0.2*
(41) Bus drivers’ lack of empathy with
cyclists
0.03 0.1 0 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.11* 0.08* 0.03 0.03 0.12* 0.06 0.11* 0.14* 0.16* 0.08* 0.02 0.07 0.04 0 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.34* 0.29*
Urban factors
(42) A law that regulates the coexistance
between transport modes that is not
well known
0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.1* 0.13* 0.03 0.1 0.12* 0.14* 0.02 0.1* 0.04 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.12* 0.13*
(43) Bad design and lack of
maintenance of streets
0.05 0.06 0.12* 0 0.09* 0.03 0.08* 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.08* 0.09 0.18* 0.14* 0.02 0.19* 0.16* 0.21* 0.15* 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.11* 0.05 0.11* 0.01 0.01 0 0.23* 0.16*
(44) Lack of trafc signs that regulate the
coexistance between modes
0.01 0.09 0.1* 0.02 0.1* 0.06 0.02 0.08* 0.06 0.03 0 0.03 0.16* 0.2* 0.05 0.14* 0.09* 0.1* 0.12* 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.1* 0 0 0.04 0.18* 0.2*
(45) Too narrow road lanes to be shared 0.05 0.06 0.1* 0.07 0.11* 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.15* 0.16* 0.19* 0.07 0.18* 0.2* 0.14* 0.13* 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0 0.11* 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.22* 0.12*
(46) Problems with street light and
weather
0.06 0.1 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.12 0.08* 0.18* 0.12* 0.18* 0.18* 0.17* 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.08* 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.33* 0.15*
(47) Lack of specic norms that regulates
the coexistance between cyclists and
bus drivers
0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.15* 0.22* 0.06 0.01 0.13* 0.15* 0.17* 0.04 0.06 0.09* 0.09* 0.03 0.07 0.1* 0.01 0.11* 0.3* 0.15*
* Cramer’s V value is signicant (95% condence level) | In black: Cramer’s values >0.3.
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
10
ID Variable name (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47)
Perceptions of cyclists
(31) Cyclist and buses can share the road 1
(32) There is a conict between bus drivers and cyclists for using the right
side of the road that has worsened over time
0.08 1
(33) Cyclists are a nuisance 0.13* 0.11* 1
(34) Cyclists hate bus drivers 0.06 0.28* 0.25* 1
(35) Cyclists’ reckless behaviour is frequently the cause of trafc accidents
and fatalities
0.01 0.19* 0.07 0.19* 1
(36) Bus drivers are frequently responsible of trafc accidents that involve
cyclists
0.04 0.1* 0.17* 0.07 0.08* 1
(37) Sharing the road with cyclists is complex but not impossible, and it
only requires proper attention
0.13* 0.03 0.08* 0.1* 0.02 0.03 1
(38) Cyclists’ reckless attitudes/behaviour 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.12* 0.12* 0.02 1
(39) Cyclists’ neglect in the use of bicycle lights and reective
clothing
0.11* 0.01 0.1* 0.02 0.03 0.1* 0.11* 0.28* 1
(40) Cyclists’ lack of empathy with bus drivers 0.07 0.11* 0.05 0.14* 0.08* 0.04 0.07 0.26* 0.31* 1
(41) Bus drivers’ lack of empathy with cyclists 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.11* 0.07 0.08* 0.16* 0.1* 0.23* 0.34* 1
Urban factors
(42) A law that regulates the coexistance between transport modes that is
not well known
0.02 0.09* 0.1* 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.09* 0.12* 0.12* 0.12* 1
(43) Bad design and lack of maintenance of streets 0.02 0 0.1* 0.04 0.04 0.09* 0.08* 0.09* 0.27* 0.23* 0.11* 0.06 1
(44) Lack of trafc signs that regulate the coexistance between modes 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.14* 0.24* 0.31* 0.19* 0.22* 0.28* 1
(45) Too narrow road lanes to be shared 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.12* 0.17* 0.31* 0.19* 0.13* 0.07 0.37* 0.24* 1
(46) Problems with street light and weather 0.05 0 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.21* 0.17* 0.18* 0.08* 0.27* 0.18* 0.25* 1
(47) Lack of specic norms that regulates the coexistance between cyclists
and bus drivers
0.1* 0.07 0.04 0.13* 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.18* 0.33* 0.36* 0.23* 0.19* 0.16* 0.28* 0.18* 0.13* 1
* Cramer’s V value is signicant (95% condence level) | In black: Cramer’s values >0.3.
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
11
cyclists may, nonetheless, perceive more conicts than objectively
occurring on the streets. A recent systematic review analysing studies
from thirteen countries showed that, in general, road users tend to
overestimate their own behaviour and knowledge of trafc laws and
underestimate the behaviours and knowledge of other users (Useche
et al., 2022). A self-reported questionnaire from Spain provides further
evidence about such discrepancies and suggests that cyclists tend to
exhibit more favourable views of their own behaviours that those who
do not cycle (Useche et al., 2021b).
In relation to age, the ndings indicate that bus drivers aged 35 to 44
years old are less happy to interact with cyclists compared to their
younger (22 to 34 years) and older peers (45 to 54 years). Several ele-
ments may contribute to explain these results. Cycling represented only
2 % of the total trips completed in Santiago by 2012 and grew up to 4 %
by 2012 (SECTRA, 2014). Recent estimates show that cycling accounts
for 7 % of the trips of Santiago (CADEM, 2014), suggesting that cycling
still has space to grow. In this context, younger drivers may be more
used to interact with cyclists because cycling was already signicant
when they started to drive. On the contrary, middle-aged drivers had to
learn to deal with bicycles. This may also be the case for older bus
drivers, yet they have a better perception of cyclists. In this regard, older
drivers may have experienced the difculties of the previous transport
system that ceased its functions in 2007 and featured several challenges
such as no authorized bus stops and the war for the fare (Johnson et al.,
2015). Those challenges may have given them the skills to deal with
rough trafc conditions and, hence, the boom of cycling. Additionally,
research in China, Colombia, Denmark and Sweden has also shown that
age is negatively related with driving errors, meaning that older bus
drivers usually make a fewer number of mistakes, tend to respect more
the trafc laws, have driving style that is less affected by their mood,
and, for motorised vehicle drivers in general, have a more cautious
driving style (Bernhoft and Carstensen, 2008; Han and Zhao, 2020;
Oviedo-Trespalacios and Scott-Parker, 2018; af Wåhlberg, 2012).
Another signicant factor contributing to the less positive (or more
negative) perception of middle-aged drivers may be the higher levels of
stress that personal responsibilities, such as parenting, have on people in
this age range (Maynard et al., 2021).
Coinciding with the ndings of studies carried out in the UK (Fruhen
and Flin, 2015), results also show that drivers’ attitudes are inuenced
by the way they believe cyclists perceive them. For bus drivers that
believe that cyclists “hate” them, the chances of having a negative
evaluation of the coexistence are 131 % more likely. Moreover, the
ndings show that cyclists’ behaviours on the streets may also affect bus
drivers’ perceptions. Mallia and colleagues (2015) reported that con-
icts in Florence and Naples (Italy), like cyclists’ abrupt turns or close
overtakes (among other factors), could lead to more violations, driving
errors and, eventually, collisions as bus drivers develop hostile feelings
towards cyclists.
Other results require further research to grasp their signicance,
including the association between the negative perception of morning
rush hour (more stressful) and a worse evaluation of the coexistence
with cyclists. A possible explanation could be cyclists’ poor use of safety
gear, especially cycling lights and reective clothing, that are manda-
tory at periods with poor lighting conditions (early morning and night).
Indeed, recent evidence has shown that cycling clashes are more likely
to occur during hours when the natural light is scant (Rimbaud, 2023). A
recent survey in Santiago showed that only 13 % of cyclists use reective
clothing and 28 % have a functioning front light (DATAVOZ, 2019).
According to ofcial records (CONASET, 2021) a total of 457 cyclist
collisions occurred in 2022 between 6:00 and 8:59 AM, when lighting
conditions are poor, especially in wintertime. Furthermore, the need to
comply with tight working shifts (Gras et al., 2006), may add additional
Table 3
Logistic regression model of “coexistence with cyclists” Source: authors’ own.
Good or Very Good
a
Bad or Very Bad
a
Variable Variable level B S.E. p Odd
ratios
95% CI B S.E. p Odd
ratios
95% CI
LL UL LL UL
Intercept -2.017 0.932 0.030 0.281 0.662 0.671
Bus driver age (years) 22 to 34 2.478 0.568 <.001 11.913 3.910 36.294 -0.560 0.325 0.085 0.571 0.302 1.081
35 to 44 1.709 0.572 0.003 5.523 1.802 16.928 -0.402 0.290 0.166 0.669 0.379 1.181
45 to 54 1.862 0.535 <.001 6.435 2.255 18.367 -0.650 0.253 0.010 0.522 0.318 0.857
55 or more 0b 0b
Considers the period before morning rush hour to be
stressful
0.506 0.358 0.158 1.658 0.822 3.346 -0.492 0.276 0.075 0.611 0.356 1.050
Has experience as a driver in the previous public
transport system
0.295 0.306 0.336 1.343 0.737 2.448 -0.475 0.216 0.028 0.622 0.407 0.950
Has seen cyclists using bus-only lanes -0.932 0.484 0.054 0.394 0.152 1.017 1.166 0.530 0.028 3.210 1.136 9.075
Experience difculties to overtake cyclists, leaving
the mandatory space of 1.5 metres
-0.738 0.291 0.011 0.478 0.270 0.845 -0.174 0.199 0.381 0.840 0.569 1.241
Experience difculties to see cyclists when turning in
a junction
-0.083 0.290 0.776 0.921 0.521 1.627 0.566 0.199 0.004 1.762 1.194 2.601
Frequency of disagreements
with cyclists
1: Rare or
exceptional
0.643 0.549 0.241 1.902 0.649 5.578 -1.321 0.375 <.001 0.267 0.128 0.556
2 -0.339 0.605 0.576 0.713 0.218 2.333 -1.304 0.382 <.001 0.271 0.128 0.574
3: Neither frequent
nor rare
-0.186 0.531 0.726 0.830 0.293 2.352 -1.184 0.325 <.001 0.306 0.162 0.579
4 -0.432 0.543 0.426 0.649 0.224 1.882 -0.851 0.327 0.009 0.427 0.225 0.810
5: Very frequent 0b 0b
Has suffered verbal aggressions from cyclists -1.110 0.348 0.001 0.330 0.167 0.652 0.779 0.199 <.001 2.180 1.475 3.223
Believes that cyclists hate bus drivers 0.151 0.307 0.623 1.162 0.637 2.120 0.836 0.206 <.001 2.308 1.543 3.453
Believes that cyclists and bus drivers can share the
road
0.696 0.331 0.035 2.006 1.049 3.836 -0.240 0.208 0.248 0.787 0.524 1.182
Lack of specic norms that regulates the coexistence
between cyclists and bus drivers
0.150 0.289 0.604 1.162 0.660 2.045 -0.416 0.201 0.039 0.660 0.445 0.979
a. The reference category is: Regular.
b. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
S.E. =standard error; CI =condence interval; LL =lower limit; UL =upper limit.
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
12
stress to bus drivers, which in turn, could affect vulnerable users of
streets, such as cyclists or pedestrians.
The results presented in this article also indicated that previous
cycling experience was unrelated to bus driver perception of cyclists,
which is at odds with previous research on the matter. Johnson et al.
(2014) found that bus drivers in Australia who cycle tend to perceive
other cyclists more positively than those who do not. Gender was not
signicant in the models, but it was when the coexistence with cyclists
was analysed in isolation. This reects the low number of female drivers
that participated in the research and suggests that gender should be
studied in more depth. Evidence from Colombia, Israel, Norway and the
USA has shown that women are less condent in their driving skills than
their male counterparts (Dejoy, 1992) and are less likely to adopt risky
driving behaviours (Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2003; Oviedo-Trespalacios
and Scott-Parker, 2018) that can lead to unsafe driving styles (Taub-
man-Ben-Ari and Skvirsky, 2016). Further, the evidence provided by
other studies from Australia, China and USA indicate that female drivers
tend to exhibit higher levels of risk perception (Rhodes and Pivik, 2011),
which are related to lower levels of trafc clashes (Wang et al., 2023,
Machin and Sankey, 2008). Likewise, other studies have shown that
male drivers in Norway are more likely to engage in risky behaviours
compared to female peers (Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2003), but it is still
unclear whether these differences extend to interactions with cyclists. A
deeper analysis of gender may provide further understandings of the
differences in driving behaviour of males and females that interact with
cyclists.
Public policies that seek to promote cycling should pay attention to
various aspects. First, more efforts should be put into restricting and
enforcing illegal and risky behaviours of bus drivers and cyclists. Special
attention must be given to bus drivers overtaking cyclists, with measures
such as increasing the penalties (as done in many countries), installing
cameras on buses, and training drivers on how to perform these ma-
noeuvres (European Cyclist Federation, 2023). Cyclists, on the other
hand, should be reminded of the dangers of using bus-only lanes, and the
ways they can protect themselves on the streets by using adequate
lighting gear and reective accessories. The relevance of the above
measures could be introduced early in the school curriculum, which
have proven to reach a wider audience and be very effective in
communicating relevant trafc safety information (Baˇ
ckali´
c et al.,
2020). Second, switching perspectives initiatives hold promise in posi-
tively shaping bus drivers’ attitudes towards cyclists and other road
users. For instance, bus drivers are invited to ride a bike close to a bus “to
interpret the meaning and intentions of others’ actions and to assess
their room for manoeuvre” (Füssl and Haupt, 2017, pp. 334). Third,
more funding should be given to poorer districts to expand and improve
the existing road infrastructure by keeping the streets well-maintained,
implementing trafc calming measures and providing cycling paths
where needed.
6. Conclusions and limitations
This study aimed to assess how cyclists are perceived by bus drivers
and how conicts arising from daily interactions shape bus drivers’ at-
titudes towards cyclists in Santiago de Chile. The ndings show that
negative experiences like aggressive manoeuvres during overtaking and
turning, as well as incidents of verbal aggression or violence from cy-
clists, contribute to drivers’ negative perception of the coexistence with
people on bicycles. These negative perceptions also inuence the
coexistence between bus drivers and cyclists, increasing conicts and
potential risks. Younger and older drivers display greater familiarity and
acceptance of cyclists compared to their middle-aged counterparts.
Finally, the current norms governing their interaction are perceived as
ineffective in reducing conicts with cyclists, which emphasizes the
need for their improvement and enforcement.
This research had a number of limitations. First, the small number of
women participants due to the reduced population of female bus drivers
of the city may have resulted in statistically not signicant model pa-
rameters of the coexistence with cyclists. The understanding of women’s
perceptions is particularly relevant nowadays as governments around
the world are multiplying the efforts to incorporate more female drivers
into the public transport workforce. Second, all bus drivers belonged to
one company that operates in all but the wealthy areas of Santiago. The
bus routes of that company cross areas with limited or absent cycling
infrastructure and, therefore, the participants’ interactions with cyclists
may be naturally conictive. Third, the experience of the participants
may not also reect the reality of bus drivers in small or medium-sized
Chilean cities. Santiago features a well-organized and highly regulated
transport system, served by a handful of bus companied with modern
buses, whereas public transport in other Chilean cities tend to be un-
regulated and operates with older buses. Fourth, although the ndings
were discussed with colleagues and experts in the area, these types of
analysis require further exploration. For instance, stakeholders (e.g.,
policy makers, bus companies) may be interviewed to discuss the nd-
ings, their policy implications and novel issues, like incentives that could
prompt changes in bus drivers’ behaviour when interacting with cyclists
(e.g., annual prize for best performance).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Rodrigo Mora: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Natan Waintrub: Methodology,
Software, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Cristhian Figueroa-Martinez: Supervision, Validation, Visu-
alization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to project FONDECYT N◦1220138 and
CEDEUS (ANID FONDAP N◦1523A0004).
The authors are grateful to Amarilis Horta and Bernardita Labarca
from Bicicultura.
References
af Wåhlberg, A., 2012. Changes in driver celeration behaviour over time: do drivers learn
from collisions? Transport. Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 15 (5), 471–479.
Ajzen, I., 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reections. Psychol.
Health 26 (9), 1113–1127.
Aldred, R., 2016. Cycling near misses: their frequency, impact, and prevention. Transp.
Res. A Policy Pract. 90, 69–83.
Aldred, R., Goodman, A., Gulliver, J., Woodcock, J., 2018. Cycling injury risk in London:
a case-control study exploring the impact of cycle volumes, motor vehicle volumes,
and road characteristics including speed limits. Accid. Anal. Prev. 117, 75–84.
Aldred, R., Goodman, A., 2018. Predictors of the frequency and subjective experience of
cycling near misses: ndings from the rst two years of the UK Near miss project.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 110, 161–170.
Baˇ
ckali´
c, S., Stanojevi´
c, D., Jovanovi´
c, D., Matovi´
c, B. and Pljaki´
c, P. (2020). An
Implementation of A Cycling Safety Education Program Among School Children
Without Previous Formal Cycling Training: A Case Study in Serbia. Research Square,
PREPRINT (Version 1). doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-113920/v1.
Balkmar, D., 2018. Violent mobilities: men, masculinities and road conicts in Sweden.
Mobilities 13 (5), 717–732.
Baumann, C., Brennan, T., and Zeibots, M. E., 2012. Bike rider and bus driver interaction
study-Draft report. Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology,
Sydney, Australia.
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
13
Bernhoft, I., Carstensen, G., 2008. Preferences and behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists
by age and gender. Transp. Res. F Psychol. Behav. 11 (2), 83–95.
Boston Police Department (2019). Bike Accident Common Causes.
Bowen, C., 2017. Implementation of the Transantiago system in Chile and its impact on
the transport sector labour market (FAL Bulletin No. 360). Natural Resources and
Infrastructure Division, ECLAC.
Brunet, A., 2011. The gender perspective in transport in Latin America and the Caribbean
(FAL Bulletin No. 301). Natural Resources and Infrastructure Division, ECLAC.
Burns, P.C., Wilde, G.J., 1995. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among
personality, observational data and driver records. Pers. Individ. Differ. 18 (2),
267–278.
CADEM, 2014. Primera Encuesta Nacional de Medio Ambiente: Opiniones,
Comportamientos y Preocupaciones. Informe Final. (Licitaci´
on 608897-131-LE14).
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente.
Chaparro, A., Galilea, P., Mu˜
noz, J.C., Poblete, J., 2020. Application of an incentive for
bus drivers to achieve an improvement in the quality of service. Res. Transp. Econ.
83, 100908.
Chen, C.F., Hsu, Y.C., 2020. Taking a closer look at bus driver emotional exhaustion and
well-being: evidence from taiwanese urban bus drivers. Saf. Health Work 11 (3),
353–360.
Comisi´
on Nacional de Seguridad de Tr´
ansito [CONASET], 2021. Siniestros de ocupantes
de bicicletas y sus consecuencias.
D’Souza, K.A., Maheshwari, S.K., 2012. Improving performance of public transit buses by
minimizing driver distraction. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 128, 281–293.
Dahlen, E., Martin, R., Ragan, K., Kuhlman, M., 2005. Driving anger, sensation seeking,
impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 37 (2), 341–348.
Datavoz, 2019. Uso de elementos de seguridad y h´
abitos de los conductores de bicicleta
de la regi´
on metropolitana. Informe de Resultados, CONASET.
Davidovi´
c, J., Peˇ
si´
c, D., Anti´
c, B., 2018. Professional drivers’ fatigue as a problem of the
modern era. Transport. Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 55, 199–209.
De Ceunynck, T., Dorleman, B., Daniels, S., Laureshyn, A., Brijs, T., Hermans, E.,
Wets, G., 2017. Sharing is (s) caring? Interactions between buses and bicyclists on
bus lanes shared with bicyclists. Transport. Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 46,
301–315.
De Rome, L., Boufous, S., Georgeson, T., Senserrick, T., Richardson, D., Ivers, R., 2014.
Bicycle crashes in different riding environments in the Australian capital territory.
Trafc Inj. Prev. 15 (1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.781591.
Ministerio de Transporte y Telecomunicaciones [MTT] (2018, 10 de Mayo). Ley 21088.
Chile: Diario Ocial. https://bcn.cl/36qdn.
Dejoy, D., 1992. An examination of gender differences in trafc accident risk perception.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 24 (3), 237–246.
Díaz, G., Gomez-Lobo, A., Velasco, A., 2004. Micros En Santiago: De Enemigo Público a
Servicio Público, Vol. 357. Centro de Estudios Públicos.
Directorio de Transporte Publico Metropolitano [DPTM], 2021. Informe de Gesti´
on 2021.
Dorn, L., Stephen, L., af Wåhlberg, A. Gandol, J., 2010. Development and validation of
a self-report measure of bus driver behaviour. Ergonomics, 53(12), 1420-1433.
Ebrahimi, H., Nasiri, P., Alimohammadi, I., Mousavi, S., Abedi, K., Danesh, F., 2017.
Modeling of sound exposure in bus drivers of Tehran branch by neural network
method. RSJ 3 (1), 36–42.
Evans, G.W., Carr`
ere, S., 1991. Trafc congestion, perceived control, and
psychophysiological stress among urban bus drivers. J. Appl. Psychol. 76 (5), 658.
Fausto, B., Adorno-Maldonado, P., Ross, L., Lavalli`
ere, M., Edwards, J., 2021.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of older driver interventions. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 149, 105852.
European Cyclists Federation (2023). Road safety: Safe lateral passing distances.
Figueroa, C.A., Hodgson, F., Mullen, C., Timms, P., 2018. Creating inequality in
accessibility: the relationships between public transport and social housing policy in
deprived areas of Santiago de Chile. J. Transp. Geogr. 67, 102–109.
Figueroa-Martínez, C., 2013. Implementation of bus rapid transit infrastructure:
conicts, meaning and contradictions in the defense of streets of Santiago de Chile.
Flux 1, 33–34.
Fort, E., Ndagire, S., Gadegbeku, B., Hours, M., Charbotel, B., 2016. Working conditions
and occupational risk exposure in employees driving for work. Accid. Anal. Prev. 89,
118–127.
Fraboni, F., Marín Puchades, V., De Angelis, M., Pietrantoni, L., Prati, G., 2018. Red-light
running behavior of cyclists in Italy: an observational study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 120,
219–232.
Fruhen, L., Flin, R., 2015. Car driver attitudes, perceptions of social norms and aggressive
driving behaviour towards cyclists. Accid. Anal. Prev. 120, 219–232.
GFK, 2017. Estudio seguridad vial. Zoom al mundo de la bicicleta.
Gras, M.E., Sullman, M.J., Cunill, M., Planes, M., Aymerich, M., Font-Mayolas, S., 2006.
Spanish drivers and their aberrant driving behaviours. Transport. Res. F: Trafc
Psychol. Behav. 9 (2), 129–137.
Han, W., Zhao, J., 2020. Driver behaviour and trafc accident involvement among
professional urban bus drivers in China. Transport. Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav.
74, 184–197.
Iles, R., 2005. Public transport in developing countries. Bingley, Emerald.
John, L.M., Flin, R., Mearns, K., 2006. Bus driver well-being review: 50 years of research.
Transport. Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 9 (2), 89–114.
Johnson, M., Newstead, S., Charlton, J., Oxley, J., 2011. Riding through red lights: the
rate, characteristics and risk factors of non-compliant urban commuter cyclists.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 43, 323–328.
Johnson, M., Oxley, J., Newstead, S., Charlton, J., 2014. Safety in numbers? investigating
australian driver behaviour, knowledge and attitudes towards cyclists. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 70, 148–154.
Johnson, R.M., Reiley, D.H., Mu˜
noz, J.C., 2015. “The war for the fare”: how driver
compensation affects bus system performance. Econ. Inq. 53 (3), 1401–1419.
Ker, I., Yapp, S., Moore, P., 2005. Bus-Bike Interaction within the Road Network (No.
Rept# NS1075).
Kompier, M.A., 1996. Bus drivers: occupational stress and stress prevention.
International Labour Ofce, Geneva.
Kotrlik, J., Williams, H., 2003. The incorporation of effect size in information
technology, learning, and performance research. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 21
(1), 1.
Laboratorio de Cambio Social, 2015. Guía convivencia Bici-Bus. Departamento de
Ingeniería de Transportes PUC, Ciudad Viva, CEDEUS and Bus Rapid Transit Centre
of Excellence.
Leal, I., 2022. La rebeli´
on de las conductoras de micro. La Tercera. https://www.
latercera.com/ nacional/noticia/la-rebelion-de-las-conductoras-de-micro/
ED3KVQW65NAJ5L6OC5AN57HVQA/.
Lin, Y.J., Shih, T.S., Wu, W.T., Guo, Y.L.L., 2023. The association of job fatigue with
mental disorders among bus drivers. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 49 (1).
Machin, M., Sankey, K., 2008. Relationships between young drivers’ personality
characteristics, risk perceptions, and driving behaviour. Accid. Anal. Prev. 40 (2),
541–547 pmid:18329405.
Magnusson, M.L., Pope, M.H., Wilder, D.G., Areskoug, B., 1996. Are occupational drivers
at an increased risk for developing musculoskeletal disorders? Spine 21 (6),
710–717.
Mallia, L., Lazuras, L., Violani, C., Lucidi, F., 2015. Crash risk and aberrant driving
behaviors among bus drivers: the role of personality and attitudes towards trafc
safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 79, 145–151.
Maynard, S., Filtness, F., Miller, K., Pilkington-Cheney, F., 2021. Bus driver fatigue: a
qualitative study of drivers in London. Appl. Ergon. 92, 103309.
Mora, R., Waintrub, N. Figueroa, C., Horta, A. (2024). Understanding cyclists’ conicts in
the streets of a Latin American metropolis. Travel Behavior and Society N◦100695
doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100695.
Mora, R., Truffello, R., Oyarzún, G., 2021. Equity and accessibility of cycling
infrastructure: an analysis of Santiago de Chile. J. Transp. Geogr. 91, 102964
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102964.
Mu˜
noz, J.C., Gschwender, A., 2008. Transantiago: a tale of two cities. Res. Transp. Econ.
22 (1), 45–53.
Mutual de Seguridad—No Chat, 2021. Observaci´
on conductas ciclistas en el gran
Santiago.
Osland, A., Anderson, E., Brazil, J., Curry, M., David, C.E. and Dean, P. (2012).
Promoting Bicycle Commuter Safety. Mineta Transportation Institute: San Jos´
e, CA,
USA.
Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Scott-Parker, B., 2018. The sex disparity in risky driving: a
survey of colombian young drivers. Trafc Inj. Prev. 19 (1), 9–17.
¨
Ozkan, T., Lajunen, T., 2005. A new addition to DBQ: positive driver behaviours scale.
Transport. Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 8, 355–368.
¨
Ozkan, T., Lajunen, T., Summala, H., 2006. Driver behaviour questionnaire: a follow-up
study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 38 (2), 386–395.
Parker, D., Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., 1995. Driving errors, driving
violations and accident involvement. Ergonomics 38 (5), 1036–1048.
Peters, R., Stavrinos, D., 2017. Technology Transfer: Distracted Driving, Overview
Summary of Ways to Alleviate.
Rhodes, N., Pivik, K., 2011. Age and gender differences in risky driving: the roles of
positive affect and risk perception. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43 (3), 923–931.
Rimbaud, A. (2023). Public Transport road safety risk for pedestrians and cyclists? Case
Study of Santiago de Chile. [Master dissertation, Universitat Polit`
ecnica de
Catalunya]. https://www.contraexceso.org/_les/ugd/2b7e26_
0455e68b707044c69b416bf5e2f63ec6.pdf.
Samerei, S.A., Aghabayk, K., Shiwakoti, N., Karimi, S., 2021. Modelling bus-pedestrian
crash severity in the state of Victoria, Australia. Int. J. Inj. Contr. Saf. Promot. 28 (2),
233–242.
Schepers, P., Stipdonk, H., Methorst, R., Olivier, J., 2017. Bicycle fatalities: trends in
crashes with and without motor vehicles in the Netherlands. Transport. Res. F:
Trafc Psychol. Behav. 46, 491–499.
Sectra, 2014. Informe ejecutivo. encuesta origen destino de viajes. SECTRA, Santiago.
Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Skvirsky, V., 2016. The multidimensional driving style inventory a
decade later: review of the literature and re-evaluation of the scale. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 93, 179–188.
Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Yehiel, D., 2012. Driving styles and their associations with
personality and motivation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 45, 416–422.
Thomas, B., De Robertis, M., 2013. The safety of urban cycle tracks: a review of the
literature. Accid. Anal. Prev. 52, 219–227.
Tiznado, I., Galilea, P., Delgado, F., Niehaus, M., 2014. Incentive schemes for bus drivers:
the case of the public transit system in Santiago, Chile. Res. Transp. Econ. 48, 77–83.
Tiznado-Aitken, I., Mora, R., Oyarzún, G., Vergara, J., Vecchio, G., 2022. A bumpy ride:
quality standards, institutional limitations and inequalities affecting cycling
infrastructure. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 110, 103434.
Transport for London, 2005. Pedal Cyclist Casualties in Greater London [Factsheet].
https://content.t.gov.uk/pedal-cyclist-casualties-04-05.pdf.
Transport for London, 2011. Pedal cyclist collisions and casualties in Greater London
[Factsheet]. https://content.t.gov.uk/pedal-cyclist-collisions-and-casualities-in-
greater-london-sep-2011.pdf.
Ulleberg, P., Rundmo, T., 2003. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of
risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Saf. Sci. 41 (5), 427–443.
Useche, S., Cendales, B., Alonso, F., Pastor, J.C., Montoro, L., 2019. Validation of the
multidimensional driving style inventory (MDSI) in professional drivers: how does it
R. Mora et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 25 (2024) 101074
14
work in transportation workers? Transport. Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 67,
155–163.
Useche, S., Esteban, C., Alonso, F., Montoro, L., 2021a. Are Latin American cycling
commuters “at risk”? a comparative study on cycling patterns, behaviors, and
crashes with non-commuter cyclists. Accid. Anal. Prev. 150, 105915.
Useche, S., Cendales, B., Alonso Pl´
a, F, Serge, A., 2017a. Comparing job stress, burnout,
health and trafc crashes of urban bus and BRT drivers. American Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2017, vol. 5, num. 1, p. 25-32.
Useche, S., Gene-Morales, J., Siebert, F., Alonso, F. and Montoro, L., (2021b). “Not as
Safe as I Believed”: Differences in Perceived and Self-Reported Cycling Behavior
between Riders and Non-Riders. Sustainability, 13, 1614.
Useche, S., Ortiz, V., Cendales, B., 2017. Stress-related psychosocial factors at work,
fatigue, and risky driving behavior in bus rapid transport (BRT) drivers. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 104, 106–114.
Useche, S., Faus, M., Alonso, F., 2022. Is safety in the eye of the beholder? discrepancies
between self-reported and proxied data on road safety behaviors—a systematic
review. Front. Psychol. 13 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.964387.
Utriainen, R. OHern., S., P¨
oll¨
anen, M., 2023. Review on single-bicycle crashes in the
recent scientic literature. Transport Reviews 43 (2), 159-177. doi: 10.1080/
01441647.2022.2055674.
Walker, I., 2007. Drivers overtaking bicyclists: objective data on the effects of riding
position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender. Accid. Anal. Prev. 39 (2),
417–425.
Wang, Q., Zhang, W., Yang, R., Huang, Y., Zhang, L., Ning, P., Cheng, X., Schwebel, D.C.,
Guoqing, H., Yao, H., 2015. Common trafc violations of bus drivers in urban China:
an observational study. PLoS One 10 (9), e0137954.
Wang, C., Zhang, W., Feng, Z., 2020. Exploring factors inuencing the risky cycling
behaviors of young cyclists aged 15–24 Years: a questionnaire-based study in China.
Risk Anal. 40 (8), 1554–1570.
Wang, S., Zhang, Y., Sun, L., 2023. Effects of personality traits on bus drivers’ prosocial
and aggressive behaviours: the moderated mediating role of risk perception and
gender. PLoS One 18 (2), e0281473.
Xianglong, S., Hu, Z., Shumin, F., Zhenning, L., 2018. Bus drivers’ mood states and
reaction abilities at high temperatures. Transport. Res. F: Trafc Psychol. Behav. 59,
436–444.
R. Mora et al.