Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34173464›Full record

ArticleTransportation research interdisciplinary perspectives2020

Autonomous vehicles and cycling: Policy implications and management issues.

Simone Pettigrew, John D Nelson, Richard Norman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Simone PettigrewThe George Institute for Global Health, 1 King St, Sydney 20042, Australia.
John D NelsonInstitute of Transport and Logistics Studies, The University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Richard NormanSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 61, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cycling as a form of active transport has great benefits for individuals and society, yet prevalence rates in many countries are low. The advent of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is likely to have substantial implications for cyclists, however little is known about the nature and magnitude of the likely impacts and the resulting implications for government planning and policy. The aim of this exploratory study was to consult with a range of stakeholder groups to identify relevant issues and stimulate debate about future efforts to maximize the benefits of vehicle autonomy for cycling outcomes. Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders representing government (local, state, and federal departments responsible for transport, health, and/or infrastructure), cycling organizations, technology firms, AV manufacturing/servicing companies, trade unions, the law, insurers (public and private), transport policy consortia, and academia. The results suggest that AVs have the potential to increase cycling prevalence while reducing cycling accidents, but that a range of issues will need to be addressed to optimize these outcomes. In particular, informed decisions need to be made about the infrastructure and equipment investments that could encourage larger numbers of commuters to select cycling as their primary form of transport.

Indexed as

Autonomous vehiclesCyclingInfrastructure requirementsPolicy

Identifiers

PMID34173464
PMCPMC7416782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.