Abstract：
Although cycling provides both individual and societal benefits, the mode share in Germany remains at a relatively low level. One reason described in literature is the lack of perceived safety due to the cycling infrastructure, especially at junctions. The study addresses the influence of junction design on cyclists\' perceived safety.
Three intersections (BS: Berlin Standard, PI: protected intersection, CbC: cycle lanes between car lanes) and one roundabout were modeled in a virtual environment. Using a bicycle simulator, n = 46 participants cycled through each junction design, followed by a qualitative interview. We conducted a structured content analysis on the interview transcripts.
Regarding the quality of statements, PI provides the highest level of perceived safety whereas CbC provides the lowest level. Both roundabout and BS provide medium to low perceived safety. Specific design features, such as continuous cycling infrastructure, physical separation and elements enhancing cyclists\' visibility improve participants\' perceived safety. On the other hand, curbs, bends, and elements obstructing visibility decrease perceived safety. Our findings also point towards a difference between overextending and manageable interactions between cars and cyclists. While manageable interactions raise attention to an appropriate extent, overextending interactions diminish the quality of the cycling experience so that some cyclists rather violate rules instead of using the designated cycling infrastructure. Furthermore, three factors influence participants\' perception of infrastructure design: comprehensibility, comfort, and perceived safety.
To provide a cycling friendly infrastructure, planners should consider cyclists\' perceived safety as well as comfort and comprehensibility. Furthermore, in contrast to isolated segments, a continuous high-quality cycling infrastructure network should be implemented. Lastly, infrastructure might focus on manageable interactions rather than cause overextending interactions.
The findings should be considered in future cycling infrastructure planning. Planners may test and modify temporary solutions to find appropriate designs for each junction.
Three intersections (BS: Berlin Standard, PI: protected intersection, CbC: cycle lanes between car lanes) and one roundabout were modeled in a virtual environment. Using a bicycle simulator, n = 46 participants cycled through each junction design, followed by a qualitative interview. We conducted a structured content analysis on the interview transcripts.
Regarding the quality of statements, PI provides the highest level of perceived safety whereas CbC provides the lowest level. Both roundabout and BS provide medium to low perceived safety. Specific design features, such as continuous cycling infrastructure, physical separation and elements enhancing cyclists\' visibility improve participants\' perceived safety. On the other hand, curbs, bends, and elements obstructing visibility decrease perceived safety. Our findings also point towards a difference between overextending and manageable interactions between cars and cyclists. While manageable interactions raise attention to an appropriate extent, overextending interactions diminish the quality of the cycling experience so that some cyclists rather violate rules instead of using the designated cycling infrastructure. Furthermore, three factors influence participants\' perception of infrastructure design: comprehensibility, comfort, and perceived safety.
To provide a cycling friendly infrastructure, planners should consider cyclists\' perceived safety as well as comfort and comprehensibility. Furthermore, in contrast to isolated segments, a continuous high-quality cycling infrastructure network should be implemented. Lastly, infrastructure might focus on manageable interactions rather than cause overextending interactions.
The findings should be considered in future cycling infrastructure planning. Planners may test and modify temporary solutions to find appropriate designs for each junction.
摘要：
背景：虽然骑自行车既能提供个人利益，也能提供社会利益，德国的模式份额仍处于相对较低的水平。文献中描述的一个原因是由于自行车基础设施缺乏感知的安全性，尤其是在路口。该研究探讨了路口设计对骑行者感知安全性的影响。
方法：三个交叉点（BS：柏林标准，PI：受保护的交叉点，CbC：车道之间的自行车道）和一个环形交叉路口在虚拟环境中建模。使用自行车模拟器，n=46名参与者循环浏览每个交叉点设计，接下来是定性采访。我们对访谈笔录进行了结构化的内容分析。
结果：关于声明的质量，PI提供最高水平的感知安全性,而CbC提供最低水平。环形交叉路口和BS都提供中等到较低的感知安全性。具体的设计特点，例如连续循环基础设施，身体隔离和增强骑自行车者能见度的元素提高了参与者的感知安全性。另一方面,路缘,弯管,和元素阻碍能见度降低感知的安全性。我们的发现还指出了汽车和骑自行车者之间过度扩展和可管理的互动之间的差异。虽然可管理的互动在适当程度上提高了注意力，过度的互动会降低骑行体验的质量，因此一些骑自行车的人违反规则，而不是使用指定的骑行基础设施。此外，三个因素影响参与者对基础设施设计的感知：可理解性，comfort,和感知的安全。
结论：为了提供自行车友好的基础设施，规划者应考虑骑车人的感知安全性以及舒适性和可理解性。此外，与孤立的段相反，应实施持续高质量的循环基础设施网络。最后,基础架构可能专注于可管理的交互，而不是导致过度扩展的交互。
结论：在未来的自行车基础设施规划中应考虑这些发现。规划人员可以测试和修改临时解决方案，为每个交叉点找到合适的设计。
方法：三个交叉点（BS：柏林标准，PI：受保护的交叉点，CbC：车道之间的自行车道）和一个环形交叉路口在虚拟环境中建模。使用自行车模拟器，n=46名参与者循环浏览每个交叉点设计，接下来是定性采访。我们对访谈笔录进行了结构化的内容分析。
结果：关于声明的质量，PI提供最高水平的感知安全性,而CbC提供最低水平。环形交叉路口和BS都提供中等到较低的感知安全性。具体的设计特点，例如连续循环基础设施，身体隔离和增强骑自行车者能见度的元素提高了参与者的感知安全性。另一方面,路缘,弯管,和元素阻碍能见度降低感知的安全性。我们的发现还指出了汽车和骑自行车者之间过度扩展和可管理的互动之间的差异。虽然可管理的互动在适当程度上提高了注意力，过度的互动会降低骑行体验的质量，因此一些骑自行车的人违反规则，而不是使用指定的骑行基础设施。此外，三个因素影响参与者对基础设施设计的感知：可理解性，comfort,和感知的安全。
结论：为了提供自行车友好的基础设施，规划者应考虑骑车人的感知安全性以及舒适性和可理解性。此外，与孤立的段相反，应实施持续高质量的循环基础设施网络。最后,基础架构可能专注于可管理的交互，而不是导致过度扩展的交互。
结论：在未来的自行车基础设施规划中应考虑这些发现。规划人员可以测试和修改临时解决方案，为每个交叉点找到合适的设计。
