Where to Ride? An Explorative Study to Investigate Potential Risk Factors of Personal Mobility Accidents
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data and Variables
2.2. Methods of Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Trends and Characteristics of PM Accidents
3.2. Factors Affecting PM Accidents
3.3. Injury Severity Modeling
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yang, H.; Ma, Q.; Wang, Z.; Cai, Q.; Xie, K.; Yang, D. Safety of micro-mobility: Analysis of E-Scooter crashes by mining news reports. Accid Anal. Prev. 2020, 143, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shin, H. A Study on Activation of Personal Mobilty in the Future. Mon. Transp. 2020, 6, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
- Tuncer, S.; Laurier, E.; Brown, B.; Licoppe, C. Notes on the practices and appearances of e-scooter users in public space. J. Transp. Geogr. 2020, 85, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A. Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing; Institute of Transportation Studies: Richmond, CA, USA, 2019; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
- Barker, R. Electric scooters. Emerg. Med. Australas 2019, 31, 914–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dowling, R.; Irwin, J.D.; Faulks, I.J.; Howitt, R. Use of personal mobility devices for first-and-last mile travel: The Macquarie-Ryde trial. In Proceedings of the 2015 Australasian Road Safety Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 14–16 October 2015; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Nishad, D.S.; Padhya, H.J.; Gandhi, Z.H. E-Scooter as an Alternative Non-motorized Transport NMT for Urban Area: A case study for Surat City in Gujarat state in western India. Int. J. Res. Anal. Rev. 2020, 7, 765–767. [Google Scholar]
- Gössling, S. Integrating e-scooters in urban transportation: Problems, policies, and the prospect of system change. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 79, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namiri, N.K.; Lui, H.; Tangney, T.; Allen, I.E.; Cohen, A.J.; Breyer, B.N. Electric Scooter Injuries and Hospital Admissions in the United States, 2014–2018. JAMA Surg. 2020, 155, 357–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, G. The Analysis of Injury Risk for the Type of Accident by Personal Mobility. J. Auto-Veh. Saf. Assoc. 2020, 12, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasegawa, Y.; Dias, C.; Iryo-Asano, M.; Nishiuchi, H. Modeling pedestrians’ subjective danger perception toward personal mobility vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 56, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myeong, M.; Song, S.; Choi, M. A Study on Safety Measures for the Use of New Transportation Focusing on Personal Mobility; Korea Road Traffic Authority Traffic Science Institute: Wonju City, Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, W.; Park, K.; Yoon, J. Bicycle Lane Enhancement Measures for Increasing Use of Personal Mobilities; Gyeonggi Research Institute: Suwon City, Korea, 2018; pp. 1–81. [Google Scholar]
- Zagorskas, J.; Burinskienė, M. Challenges Caused by Increased Use of E-Powered Personal Mobility Vehicles in European Cities. Sustainability 2019, 12, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Espinoza, W.; Howard, M.; Lane, J.; Hentenryck, P.V. Shared E-scooters: Business, Pleasure, or Transit? arXiv 2019, arXiv:1910.05807. [Google Scholar]
- McKenzie, G. Urban mobility in the sharing economy: A spatiotemporal comparison of shared mobility services. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2020, 79, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noland, R.B. Trip patterns and revenue of shared e-scooters in Louisville, Kentucky. Transp. Find. 2019, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alwani, M.; Jones, A.J.; Sandelski, M.; Bandali, E.; Lancaster, B.; Sim, M.W.; Shipchandler, T.; Ting, J. Facing Facts: Facial Injuries from Stand-up Electric Scooters. Cureus 2020, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stormann, P.; Klug, A.; Nau, C.; Verboket, R.D.; Leiblein, M.; Muller, D.; Schweigkofler, U.; Hoffmann, R.; Marzi, I.; Lustenberger, T. Characteristics and Injury Patterns in Electric-Scooter Related Accidents-A Prospective Two-Center Report from Germany. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blomberg, S.N.F.; Rosenkrantz, O.C.M.; Lippert, F.; Collatz Christensen, H. Injury from electric scooters in Copenhagen: A retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2019, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sikka, N.; Vila, C.; Stratton, M.; Ghassemi, M.; Pourmand, A. Sharing the sidewalk: A case of E-scooter related pedestrian injury. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 37, 1807.e1805–1807.e1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aizpuru, M.; Farley, K.X.; Rojas, J.C.; Crawford, R.S.; Moore, T.J., Jr.; Wagner, E.R. Motorized scooter injuries in the era of scooter-shares: A review of the national electronic surveillance system. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 37, 1133–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badeau, A.; Carman, C.; Newman, M.; Steenblik, J.; Carlson, M.; Madsen, T. Emergency department visits for electric scooter-related injuries after introduction of an urban rental program. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 37, 1531–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trivedi, T.K.; Liu, C.; Antonio, A.L.M.; Wheaton, N.; Kreger, V.; Yap, A.; Schriger, D.; Elmore, J.G. Injuries Associated With Standing Electric Scooter Use. JAMA Netw. Open 2019, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, M.; Sun, X.; Shan, D. Pedestrian crash analysis with latent class clustering method. Accid Anal. Prev. 2019, 124, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, Z.; Feng, Z.; Jiang, K.; Huang, Z.; Yang, Z. Riding personal mobility vehicles on the road: An analysis of the intentions of Chinese users. Cogn. Technol. Work 2019, 22, 801–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynolds, C.C.; Harris, M.A.; Teschke, K.; Cripton, P.A.; Winters, M. The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: A review of the literature. Environ. Health 2009, 8, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vandenbulcke, G.; Thomas, I.; Int Panis, L. Predicting cycling accident risk in Brussels: A spatial case-control approach. Accid Anal. Prev. 2014, 62, 341–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wachtel, A.; Lewiston, D. Risk factors for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions at intersections. ITE J. 1994, 64, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
- Billot-Grasset, A.; Amoros, E.; Hours, M. How cyclist behavior affects bicycle accident configurations? Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 41, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rietveld, P.; Daniel, V. Determinants of bicycle use: Do municipal policies matter? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2004, 38, 531–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.W.; Park, W.B.; Cho, J.S.; Hyun, S.Y.; Lee, G. The New Recreational Transportation on the Street: Personal Mobility, Is It Safe? J. Trauma Inj. 2018, 31, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verstappen, E.M.J.; Vy, D.T.; Janzing, H.M.; Janssen, L.; Vos, R.; Versteegen, M.G.J.; Barten, D.G. Bicycle-related injuries in the emergency department: A comparison between E-bikes and conventional bicycles: A prospective observational study. Eur. J. Trauma. Emerg. Surg. 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seoul. Seoul Bicycle Lane Installment and Maintenance Manual; Seoul Metropolitan City: Seoul, Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Description | Sources | |
---|---|---|---|
Accident characteristics | Accident type | (1) Accident with motor vehicle, (2) Accident with pedestrian, (3) Accident with bicycle, (4) Self-accident | Traffic Accident Analysis System |
Offender vs. Victim | Whether the PM (Bike) user was offender or victim | ||
Gender of PM (Bike) user | (1) Male, (2) Female | ||
Age of PM (Bike) user | (1) Less than 16, (2) 16–64, (3) 65 or more | ||
Injury severity of PM (Bike) user | (1) No injury, (2) Wound, (3) Minor injury, (4) Severe injury, (5) Death | ||
Gender of victim * | (1) Male, (2) Female | ||
Age of victim * | (1) Less than 16, (2) 16–64, (3) 65 or more | ||
Injury severity of Victim * | (1) No injury, (2) Wound, (3) Minor injury, (4) Severe injury, (5) Death | ||
Environmental factors | Day of week | (1) Weekday, (2) Weekend/Holiday | |
Time | (1) Daytime (After 6 a.m.–Before 6 p.m.), (2) Night-time (After 6 p.m.–Before 6 a.m.) | ||
Season | (1) Spring, (2) Summer, (3) Autumn, (4) Winter | ||
Weather | (1) Clear, (2) Cloudy, (3) Rain/Snow | ||
Locational factors | Region | (1) Urban area, (2) Rural area | Digital map (National Geographic Information Institute) |
Road type | (1) Road without sidewalk, (2) Road with sidewalk only, (3) Road with sidewalk and bikeway, (4) Pedestrian-only road **, (5) Bicycle lane *, (6) Off-road *** | ||
Road width | (1) Less than 8 m, (2) 8–12 m, (3) 12–25 m, (4) 25 m or wider, (5) Not Applicable (Off-road) | ||
Road intersection **** | (1) Non-intersection, (2) Intersection, (3) Not Applicable (Off-road) | ||
Road pavement | (1) Paved, (2) Unpaved, (3) Not Applicable (Off-road) | ||
Land slope | (1) Flat (less than 5°), (2) Mild slope (5–15°), (3) Steep slope (15° or higher) | Topographic map (National Institute of Agricultural Sciences) | |
Land use | (1) Residential zone, (2) Commercial zone, (3) Rural/Green zone | Land use map (National Spatial Data Portal) |
Accident Category | (1) Number of Accidents (Unit: Accidents) | |||
2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2017–2019 | |
Motor vehicle | 190,095 | 193,072 | 203,644 | 7.1% |
Bicycle | 13,118 | 11,148 | 12,320 | −6.1% |
Personal mobility (PM) | 216 | 449 | 823 | 282.9% |
Accident Category | (2) Number of Potential Users (Unit: 1000 Users) | |||
2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2017–2019 | |
Motor vehicle | 22,530 | 23,200 | 23,680 | 5.1% |
Bicycle | 13,353 | 13,353 | 13,353 | 0.0% |
Personal mobility (PM) | 98 | 167 | 196 | 101.2% |
Accident Category | (3) Incidence Ratio (Unit: Accidents per 1000 Users for Motor Vehicle and Bicycle; Accidents per 1000 Vehicles for PMs) | |||
2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2017–2019 | |
Motor vehicle | 8.4 | 8.3 | 8.6 | 1.9% |
Bicycle | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | −6.1% |
Personal mobility (PM) | 2.2 | 2.7 | 4.2 | 89.3% |
Variables | PM Accident | Bicycle Accident | Population | Floating Population |
---|---|---|---|---|
PM accident | 1 | 0.156 | 0.131 | 0.196 |
Bicycle accident | 1 | 0.358 | 0.269 | |
Population | 1 | 0.247 | ||
Floating population | 1 |
Variables | PM Accident | Bicycle Accident | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Accident characteristics | Accident type | Accident with motor vehicle | 76.1% | 86.0% |
Accident with pedestrian | 14.2% | 7.6% | ||
Accident with bicycle | 4.2% | 4.7% | ||
Self-accident | 5.6% | 1.7% | ||
Offender vs. Victim | Offender | 49.2% | 43.3% | |
Victim | 50.8% | 56.7% | ||
Gender of PM (Bike) user | Male | 80.1% | 79.6% | |
Female | 19.9% | 20.4% | ||
Age of PM (Bike) user | Less than 16 | 3.3% | 17.1% | |
16–24 | 19.2% | 10.2% | ||
25–34 | 25.5% | 6.7% | ||
35–49 | 28.6% | 13.9% | ||
50–64 | 15.7% | 23.8% | ||
65 or more | 7.8% | 28.3% | ||
Injury severity | No injury | 1.3% | 0.4% | |
Wound | 10.5% | 12.3% | ||
Minor injury | 54.8% | 50.5% | ||
Severe injury | 32.4% | 35.0% | ||
Death | 1.1% | 1.8% |
Variables | Accident with Motor Vehicle | Accident with Pedestrian | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PM (a) | Bicycle (b) | Differences (a–b) | PM (c) | Bicycle (d) | Differences (c–d) | |||
Accident characteristics | Offender vs. Victim | Offender | 34.5% | 34.1% | 0.4% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
Victim | 65.5% | 65.9% | −0.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | ||
Gender of PM (Bike) user | Male | 80.3% | 78.7% | 1.6% | 73.5% | 87.3% | −13.9% *** | |
Female | 19.7% | 21.3% | −1.6% | 26.5% | 12.7% | 13.9% *** | ||
Age of PM (Bike) user | Less than 16 | 2.8% | 17.3% | −14.5% *** | 5.7% | 20.0% | −14.3% *** | |
16–24 | 17.8% | 9.1% | 8.6% *** | 28.9% | 19.3% | 9.6% * | ||
25–34 | 25.4% | 6.5% | 19.0% *** | 27.5% | 6.7% | 20.8% *** | ||
35–49 | 28.9% | 13.1% | 15.8% *** | 20.9% | 18.0% | 2.9% | ||
50–64 | 16.7% | 24.0% | −7.3% *** | 10.9% | 21.3% | −10.4% ** | ||
65 or more | 8.4% | 30.0% | −21.6% *** | 6.2% | 14.7% | −8.5% * | ||
Injury severity of PM (Bike) user | No injury | 4.7% | 1.8% | 2.9% *** | 2.4% | 4.7% | −2.3% | |
Wound | 9.9% | 11.7% | −1.8% | 11.4% | 10.7% | 0.7% | ||
Minor injury | 54.1% | 51.1% | 2.9% | 56.9% | 44.0% | 12.9% * | ||
Severe injury | 30.6% | 33.7% | −3.1% | 28.9% | 40.7% | −11.8% * | ||
Death | 0.8% | 1.8% | −1.0% * | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.5% | ||
Environmental factors | Day of week | Weekday | 74.6% | 74.6% | 0.1% | 71.6% | 69.3% | 2.2% |
Weekend/Holiday | 25.4% | 25.4% | −0.1% | 28.4% | 30.7% | −2.2% | ||
Time | Daytime | 67.6% | 84.4% | −16.8% *** | 77.7% | 78.7% | −0.9% | |
Night-time | 32.4% | 15.6% | 16.8% *** | 22.3% | 21.3% | 0.9% | ||
Season | Spring | 17.8% | 28.0% | −10.3% *** | 19.4% | 23.3% | −3.9% | |
Summer | 29.0% | 30.4% | −1.4% | 35.1% | 30.0% | 5.1% | ||
Autumn | 36.8% | 28.3% | 8.6% *** | 34.1% | 36.7% | −2.5% | ||
Winter | 16.4% | 13.3% | 3.1% * | 11.4% | 10.0% | 1.4% | ||
Weather | Clear | 95.1% | 94.7% | 0.3% | 95.7% | 98.0% | −2.3% | |
Cloudy | 2.0% | 2.3% | −0.3% | 1.9% | 0.7% | 1.2% | ||
Rain/Snow | 2.9% | 3.0% | −0.1% | 2.4% | 1.3% | 1.0% | ||
Locational factors | Region | Urban area | 92.0% | 83.5% | 8.5% *** | 96.2% | 92.0% | 4.2% |
Rural area | 8.0% | 16.5% | −8.5% *** | 3.8% | 8.0% | −4.2% | ||
Road type | Road without sidewalk | 31.5% | 27.8% | 3.7% * | 19.9% | 22.0% | −2.1% | |
Road with sidewalk | 32.3% | 35.7% | −3.3% | 31.8% | 17.3% | 14.4% ** | ||
Road with sidewalkand bikeway | 25.1% | 30.4% | −5.3% ** | 19.9% | 20.7% | −0.8% | ||
Pedestrian-only road | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.9% | 10.0% | 0.9% | ||
Bicycle lane | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | ||
Off-road | 11.0% | 6.2% | 4.9% *** | 17.5% | 30.0% | −12.5% ** | ||
Road width * | Less than 8 m | 16.8% | 11.2% | 5.6% *** | 23.6% | 28.6% | −5.0% | |
8–11.9 m | 20.1% | 22.2% | −2.1% | 16.1% | 17.1% | −1.1% | ||
12–24.9 m | 29.0% | 36.2% | −7.2% *** | 23.0% | 27.6% | −4.6% | ||
25 m or wider | 34.2% | 30.4% | 3.7% * | 37.4% | 26.7% | 10.7% | ||
Road intersection 1 | Non-intersection | 38.6% | 39.5% | −0.9% | 77.6% | 77.1% | 0.4% | |
Intersection | 61.4% | 60.5% | 0.9% | 22.4% | 22.9% | −0.4% | ||
Road pavement 1 | Paved | 99.9% | 99.9% | 0.0% | 82.5% | 70.0% | 12.5% ** | |
Unpaved | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | ||
Land slope | Flat | 89.9% | 89.7% | 0.2% | 88.6% | 83.3% | 5.3% | |
Mild slope | 9.3% | 8.7% | 0.6% | 11.4% | 14.0% | −2.6% | ||
Steep slope | 0.8% | 1.6% | −0.8% * | 0.0% | 2.7% | −2.7% * | ||
Land use zone | Residential zone | 64.9% | 62.6% | 2.3% | 61.6% | 51.3% | 10.3% | |
Commercial zone | 19.9% | 16.0% | 3.8% | 23.7% | 15.3% | 8.4% * | ||
Rural/Green zone | 15.2% | 21.3% | −6.1% | 14.7% | 33.3% | −18.6% *** | ||
N | 1132 | 17,966 | 211 | 1583 |
Crash Situations | Road Type | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Road without Sidewalk | Road with Sidewalk | Road with Sidewalk and Bikeway | Others | Total | |
Walking on sidewalk | 1 (2.4%) | 16 (23.9%) | 13 (31.0%) | 18 (30.0%) | 48 (22.7%) |
Walking on roadway | 10 (23.8%) | 1 (1.5%) | 2 (4.8%) | 3 (5.0%) | 16 (7.6%) |
Walking on roadside | 5 (11.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.7%) | 6 (2.8%) |
Crossing | 2 (4.8%) | 25 (37.3%) | 12 (28.6%) | 6 (10.0%) | 45 (21.3%) |
Unknown | 24 (57.1%) | 25 (37.3%) | 15 (35.7%) | 32 (53.3%) | 96 (45.5%) |
Total | 42 (100.0%) | 67 (100.0%) | 42 (100.0%) | 60 (100.0%) | 211 (100.0%) |
Variables | Accident with Motor Vehicle (Y = PM’s Injury Severity) | Accident with Pedestrian (Y = Pedestrian’s Injury Severity) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Odds Ratio | z Value | Odds Ratio | z Value | ||
Offender vs. Victim (1 = Victim, 0 = Offender) | 3.597 | 9.374 *** | |||
Gender of victim (1 = Female, 0 = Male) | 0.948 | −0.354 | 1.530 | 1.346 | |
Age of victim | 16–64 (ref.) | ||||
Less than 16 | 0.548 | −1.666 | 0.650 | −0.878 | |
65 or more | 1.368 | 1.391 | 2.748 | 3.033 ** | |
Day of week (1 = Weekend/Holiday, 0 = Weekday) | 0.998 | −0.015 | 0.948 | −0.165 | |
Time (1 = Night-time, 0 = Daytime) | 0.926 | −0.589 | 2.409 | 2.356 * | |
Season | Spring (ref.) | ||||
Summer | 0.813 | −1.181 | 1.361 | 0.728 | |
Autumn | 0.997 | −0.021 | 0.845 | −0.404 | |
Winter | 0.733 | −1.570 | 1.549 | 0.788 | |
Weather | Clear (ref.) | ||||
Cloudy | 1.479 | 0.912 | 0.342 | −0.836 | |
Rain/Snow | 1.854 | 1.862 * | 0.488 | −0.784 | |
Region (1 = Rural area, 0 = Urban area) | 1.586 | 1.984 * | 0.220 | −2.008 * | |
Road type | Road without sidewalk (ref.) | ||||
Road with sidewalk | 0.902 | −0.346 | 4.277 | 1.871 | |
Road with sidewalk and bikeway | 0.954 | −0.143 | 5.520 | 2.401 * | |
Pedestrian-only road | 0.315 | −1.577 | |||
Bicycle lane | |||||
Off-road | 0.941 | −0.249 | 0.499 | −1.145 | |
Road width | Less than 8 m (ref.) | ||||
8–11.9 m | 0.815 | −0.967 | 0.322 | −1.840 | |
12–24.9 m | 1.149 | 0.411 | 0.111 | −2.428 * | |
25 m or wider | 0.881 | −0.356 | 0.121 | −2.286 * | |
Road intersection (1 = Intersection, 0 = Non-intersection) | 1.089 | 0.659 | 1.030 | 0.073 | |
Road pavement (1 = Unpaved, 0 = Paved) | 8.332 | 1.910 * | |||
Land slope | Flat (ref.) | ||||
Mild slope | 1.160 | 0.727 | 0.830 | −0.410 | |
Steep slope | 0.434 | −1.297 | |||
Land use zone | Residential zone (ref.) | ||||
Commercial zone | 1.197 | 1.195 | 0.732 | −0.842 | |
Rural/Green zone | 1.576 | 2.559 * | 1.626 | 0.947 | |
N | 1132 | 211 | |||
AIC | 2420.355 | 459.9389 |
Off-Road | Number of Accidents | Off-Road | Number of Accidents |
---|---|---|---|
Other | 67 (33.8%) | Square (plaza) | 16 (8.1%) |
Parking lot | 46 (23.2%) | University campus | 14 (7.1%) |
Apartment complex | 32 (16.2%) | Trail | 6 (3.0%) |
Park | 17 (8.6%) | Total | 198 (100.0%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oh, J.; Kim, J. Where to Ride? An Explorative Study to Investigate Potential Risk Factors of Personal Mobility Accidents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030965
Oh J, Kim J. Where to Ride? An Explorative Study to Investigate Potential Risk Factors of Personal Mobility Accidents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(3):965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030965
Chicago/Turabian StyleOh, Jihun, and Jeongseob Kim. 2021. "Where to Ride? An Explorative Study to Investigate Potential Risk Factors of Personal Mobility Accidents" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 3: 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030965