Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41188319›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Assessment of cyclists yielding to pedestrians at an unsignalized zebra crossing in Germany using drone video.

Hiba Nassereddine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Hiba NassereddineFaculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Institute of Transportation and Spatial Planning, Professorship for Traffic Psychology, University of the Bundeswehr Munich, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, 85577, Neubiberg, Germany. hiba.nassereddine@unibw.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research has examined vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-cyclist interactions, but there have been few studies that examined cyclist-pedestrian interactions at intersections. This study addresses this gap by analyzing cyclist-pedestrian interactions at an unsignalized intersection in Germany using publicly available drone data. The study presents a framework and proof of concept for analyzing cyclist behavior proactively, without relying on crash data. The primary objectives are to identify the variables influencing cyclist yielding behavior and obstructed travel time (OTT) within a predefined zone at a zebra crossing and to classify cyclist behaviors. Using logistic and linear regression models, several key predictors were identified, including cyclist speed, trajectory changes, pedestrian time-to-conflict-point, and interaction proximity, which significantly impacted yielding behavior. Speed reduction and pedestrian presence on the zebra crossing were found to improve yielding rates. Additionally, clustering analysis revealed two optimal and distinct cyclist behavior groups: one cluster exhibiting less yielding behavior, while the other demonstrated greater compliance with traffic laws. This proactive approach provides a valuable alternative in environments where crash data acquisition is complicated by privacy regulations. It offers critical insights for traffic management strategies aimed at enhancing pedestrian safety at unsignalized intersections, making it applicable to broader contexts with similar data challenges.

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficBicyclingPedestriansUnmanned Aerial DevicesGermanyHumansVideo RecordingClustering analysisCyclist-pedestrian interactionsCyclist yielding behaviorDrone video dataRegression analysisZebra crossing safety

Identifiers

PMID41188319
PMCPMC12586454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.