25/09/2011

Benefits of utilitarian cycling

Health: physical activity and reduced car use Environment: air, noise and visual pollution, and climate change Transport: more efficient use of finite road space

Jan Garrard Deakin University

Community liveability: people-friendly urban environments

Who is reaping the benefits of utility cycling?

(Source: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk)
2.5
Distance cycled per inhabitant per day (km))

Whats holding us back?

Unsafe road conditions (46%) Speed/volume of traffic (42%) Dont feel safe riding (41%) Lack of bicycle lanes/trails (35%)
(CPF and NHF, 2011)

2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Australias missing cyclists

Understanding the key constraint on cycling in Australia

Traffic safety concerns are a major constraint on cycling Traditionally, the response has been to build more bike

lanes in the hope that separation from motor vehicles will make them come. This certainly helps, but is only one part of the package required to move beyond the 1% of utility trips by bike. Even in countries with very good cycling infrastructure, cyclists and motor vehicles are frequently required to interact It is important that these interactions are well-managed, safe, and perceived to be safe.

25/09/2011

Overview
This paper: examines the facts and fear associated with cycling in car-oriented countries such as Australia draws on the concepts of actual (quantitative) and perceived risk examines qualitative aspects of perceived risk from the (environmental) risk assessment and risk communication field; and looks at the policy implications of reducing both risk and fear

Understanding traffic safety concerns: the facts

Country (city) The Netherlands Denmark Germany UK USA Melbourne Sydney Cyclist injuries (per 10 million km) 1.4 (KSI) 1.7 4.7 6.0 37.5 12.4 (police data), 31.5 (hospital data) 55.7 (police data, includes minor injuries)
8

The risk appraisal gap: the role of fear

Relative risk of injury: Melbourne metropolitan area (police-reported injuries)
1.2 serious injuries per million km cycled Bicycle:car relative risk of serious injury per km in Melbourne = 13 Driving 13 km has same (very low) risk of serious injury as cycling 1 km Melbourne drivers average 28 km per day Safety concerns appear not to constrain driving Why is there a large risk appraisal gap between driving and cycling?
While cycling risk is greater than driving risk (per km), it is

no greater than many other injury risks associated with everyday life (eg falls, sports injuries) Most people do not know the actual risk of serious injury for, say, driving to work compared with cycling to work Quantitative risk of injury may play a role in travel mode choice, but perceptions of risk are more important So, why is cycling perceived to be risky? Cycling often feels (and looks) risky

Cycling in Australia feels risky

(Johnson et al 2010)
13 commuter cyclists, Melbourne, 122 hrs 38 minutes 54 events One event per 2.3 hr Collision: Contact between cyclist and another road user Near-collision: Required rapid, evasive action to avoid a

Australias hostile road environment: cyclists experiences

10

2006 online survey of

No. of incidents per year

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Bicycle Victoria members and contacts (N = 2403)

66% reported experiencing

harassment in previous 12 months

Average of 24 incidents in

collision Incident: Collision avoidance less sudden

1 0
to o cl os Sh e ou tin ho g ab pr us n ag e gr es siv O el bs y ce ne ge stu Bl re s oc ki ng pa th Ta ilg Th at in ro g w in g ob Se je xu ct al s ha ra ss m en t So un di ng

past 12 months per survey respondent (approx once a fortnight)

riv in g

25/09/2011

Unpleasant and a barrier to cycling; but, how much harm and what sort of harm?
Difficult to measure impact on injury Substantial impact on psychological wellbeing fear and

The cycling risk iceberg

Fatalities Serious injuries Minor injuries Collisions Cycling risk

anxiety Harm in the form of the benefits of cycling foregone

Near collisions, incidents and harassment Fear of cycling

Exploring the base of the iceberg

(Johnson et al 2010)
Collisions (2) Near-collisions (6)

From cycling incidents to fear of cycling

Serious injuries are relatively rare, but stressful incidents are

13 commuter cyclists,

Incidents (46)

Melbourne, 122 hrs 38 minutes, 54 events One event per 2.3 hr Collision: Contact between cyclist and another road user Near-collision: Required rapid, evasive action to avoid a collision Incident: Collision avoidance less sudden

common

How do stressful, but otherwise harmless incidents contribute

to a fear of cycling?

Risk assessment and risk communication research has

identified a number of factors that lead to heightened risk concerns (independently of actual risk) In the 1980s, qualitative elements of peoples risk assessments were researched and developed following the failure of environmental risk communication messages such as: Living in a town with a nuclear power plant carries less risk of death than choking on a vegemite sandwich

Risk assessment and communication: what factors make activities feel risky?
Components of risk perception Sense of personal control Trust in other road users (are they looking out for me?) Common/unusual Discrimination: in-group/out-group Social cues Vulnerability Consequences Driving High Yes Common In-group Everyone is doing it Low (protective shell) Usually minor Cycling Low? No? Unusual Out-group Not many people do it High (no protective shell) Potentially severe

Addressing cycling risk and fear

High-cycling countries clearly do both Eg, the Netherlands: high levels (27% bicycle mode share of trips) of safe cycling (1.4 KSI per 10 million km) Relationship between risk reduction and fear reduction measures?

25/09/2011

Risk reduction measures

International experience indicates that we can increase cycling

Fear reduction
Social aspects of risk perceptions important What do other people think and do?

and improve cycling safety by implementing an integrated package of measures including: good cycling infrastructure urban planning measures that reduce car use disincentives for car use (in Australias case remove incentives!) prioritise bicycle use in residential areas and activity centres widespread traffic calming, including lower speed limits (30km/hr) in urban areas driver education, licensing and legal requirements that place greater responsibility on drivers for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians national cycling promotion, education and skills programs 19

time, none is more common than the actions of others. (Bandura, 1986, p.206) Importance of Cycling is prevalent and socially acceptable messages The Netherlands cycling strategy: Good infrastructure, PLUS Fun Easy Habitual (everyone is doing it)

Of the many cues that influence behavior, at any point in

Emotions linked to modes of transport

(Fietsberaad 2009)

Fear reduction measures

Components of risk perception Sense of control Trust in other road users (general and are they looking out for me?) Common/unusual Fear reduction measures Cycling skills and self-efficacy Road rules, enforcement, compliance Public attitudes to road safety (eg speed control) Drivers responsible for avoiding collisions with cyclists Prioritise cycling in urban areas Cycling promotion

Discrimination/vilification Establish cycling as a legitimate form of transport Address public, media and individual vilification of people who ride bicycles (as has been done for other forms of discrimination and vilification) Improve image of cycling, address misperceptions Increase social acceptability Social cues Direct observation Making the invisible visible

Conclusions
Reducing cycling injuries is an important road safety

Conclusions
Regardless of (i) relative importance of perceived and actual

objective Reducing fear of cycling is an important wider health and social policy objective The two are interconnected but not identical To the extent that cycling safety measures increase cycling, the road safety sector needs to acknowledge that improving cycling (and pedestrian) safety has multiple public health and other social benefits in addition to injury prevention. Important to address factors at the base of the iceberg

risk and (ii) precise mechanism by which risk and fear constrain cycling: Need to address both Measures different but overlapping Some potential dilemmas:
increasing fear?

Does advocacy for improving cycling safety reduce cycling by Do some safety measures reduce risk but increase fear (eg

helmets, reflective clothing?)

some forms of cycling infrastructure) Its not rocket science its more complicated (John Adams)

Do some measures reduce fear but not necessarily risk? (eg