This paper discusses the question about how to write a literature review paper (LRP).It stresses the primary importance of adding value, rather than only providing an overview, and it then discusses some of the reasons for (or not) actually writing an LRP, including issues relating to the nature and scope of the paper. It also presents different types of LRPs, advises on reporting the methodology used for the selection of papers for review, and the structure of an LRP. An important conclusion is that the heterogeneity in LRPs is very large. This paper also presents some of the aspects that the authors feel are important structural and contextual considerations that help produce highquality review papers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Sometimes experts, decisionmakers, and analysts are confronted with policy problems that involve deep uncertainty. Such policy problems occur when (1) the future is not known well enough to predict future changes to the system, (2) there is not enough knowledge regarding the appropriate model to use to estimate the outcomes, and/or (3) there is not enough knowledge regarding the weights stakeholders currently assign to the various criteria or will assign in the future. This paper presents an MCDA approach developed to deal with conditions of deep uncertainty, which is called Exploratory Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (EMCDA). EMCDA is based on exploratory modelling, which is a modelling approach that allows policy analysts to explore multiple hypotheses about the future world (using different consequence models, different scenarios, and different weights). An example of a policy problem that can benefit from this methodology is decision making on innovations for improving traffic safety. In order to improve traffic safety, much is expected from Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), an in-vehicle system that supports the driver in keeping an appropriate speed. However, different MCDA studies on ISA give different results in terms of the estimates of realworld safety benefits of ISA and the willingness of stakeholders (e.g. the automotive industry) to supply ISA. The application of EMCDA to the implementation of ISA shows that it is possible to perform an MCDA in situations of deep uncertainty. A full analysis taking into account the complete uncertainty space shows that the best policy is to make mandatory an ISA system for young drivers (less than 24 years of age) that restricts them from driving faster than the speed limit. Based on different assumptions, the analysis also shows that ISA policies should not target older drivers.

Listening to music or talking on the phone while cycling as well as the growing number of quiet (electric) cars on the road can make the use of auditory cues challenging for cyclists. The present study examined to what extent and in which traffic situations traffic sounds are important for safe cycling. Furthermore, the study investigated the potential safety implications of limited auditory information caused by quiet (electric) cars and by cyclists listening to music or talking on the phone. An Internet survey among 2249 cyclists in three age groups (16-18, 30-40 and 65-70year old) was carried out to collect information on the following aspects: 1) the auditory perception of traffic sounds, including the sounds of quiet (electric) cars; 2) the possible compensatory behaviours of cyclists who listen to music or talk on their mobile phones; 3) the possible contribution of listening to music and talking on the phone to cycling crashes and incidents. Age differences with respect to those three aspects were analysed. Results show that listening to music and talking on the phone negatively affects perception of sounds crucial for safe cycling. However, taking into account the influence of confounding variables, no relationship was found between the frequency of listening to music or talking on the phone and the frequency of incidents among teenage cyclists. This may be due to cyclists' compensating for the use of portable devices. Listening to music or talking on the phone whilst cycling may still pose a risk in the absence of compensatory behaviour or in a traffic environment with less extensive and less safe cycling infrastructure than the Dutch setting. With the increasing number of quiet (electric) cars on the road, cyclists in the future may also need to compensate for the limited auditory input of these cars.

Listening to music while cycling impairs cyclists' auditory perception and may decrease their awareness of approaching vehicles. If the impaired auditory perception is not compensated by the cyclist himself or other road users involved, crashes may occur. The first aim of this study was to investigate in real traffic whether teenage cyclists (aged 16-18) compensate for listening to music by increasing their visual performance. Research in real traffic may pose a risk for participants. Although no standard ethical codes exist for road safety research, we took a number of ethical considerations into account to protect participants. Our second aim was to present this study as a case study demonstrating ethical dilemmas related to performing research in real traffic. The third aim was to examine to what extent the applied experimental setup is suitable to examine bicyclists' visual behaviour in situations crucial for their safety. Semi-naturalistic data was gathered. Participants' eye movements were recorded by a head-mounted eye-tracker during two of their regular trips in urban environments. During one of the trips, cyclists were listening to music (music condition); during the other trip they were 'just' cycling (the baseline condition). As for cyclists' visual behaviour, overall results show that it was not affected by listening to music. Descriptive statistics showed that 21-36% of participants increased their visual performance in the music condition, while 43-64% decreased their visual performance while listening to music. Due to ethical considerations, the study was therefore terminated after fourteen cyclists had participated. Potential implications of these results for cycling safety and cycling safety research are discussed. The methodology used in this study did not allow us to investigate cyclists' behaviour in demanding traffic environment. However, for now, no other research method seems suitable to address this research gap.

No abstract