apcc conference 2011 j garrard

8/3/2019 APCC Conference 2011 J Garrard

1/4

25/09/20

Jan Garrard

Deakin University

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

Community liveability: people-friendly urban

environments

Who is reaping the benefits of utility cycling?(Source: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Distanc

ecycledperinhabitantperday(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)

Australias missing cyclists Understanding the key constraint oncycling 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 willmake them come.

This certainly helps, but is only one part of the packagerequired 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 tointeract

It is important that these interactions are well-managed,safe, and perceived to be safe.


2/4

25/09/20

Overview

This paper:

examines the facts and fear associated with cycling incar-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) Cyclist injuries (per 10

million km)

The Netherlands 1.4 (KSI)

Denmark 1.7

Germany 4.7

UK 6.0

USA 37.5

Melbourne 12.4 (police data), 31.5(hospital data)

Sydney 55.7 (police data, includesminor injuries)

8

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 inMelbourne = 13

Driving 13 km has same (very low) risk of serious injuryas 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 drivingand cycling?

The risk appraisal gap: the role of fear

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 oftenfeels (and looks) risky

Cycling in Australiafeels 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

collision

Incident: Collision avoidance less sudden

Australias hostile road environment:

cyclists experiences

2006 online survey ofBicycle Victoria members and

contacts (N = 2403)

66% reported experiencing

harassment in previous 12

months

Average of 24 incidents in

past 12 months per survey

respondent (approx once a

fortnight)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Drivi

ngto

oclos

e

Shoutin

gabuse

Soun

dingh

oprn

aggressiv

ely

Obsceneg

estures

Blockin

gpath

Tailg

ating

Throwi

ngobjec

ts

Sexu

alha

rassm

ent

No.ofincidentsperyear


3/4

25/09/20

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

anxiety

Harm in the form of the benefits of cycling foregone

The cycling risk iceberg

Fatalities

Near collisions,incidents andharassment

Serious injuries

Minor injuries

Collisions

Cycling risk

Fear of cycling

Exploring the base of the iceberg(Johnson et al 2010)

13 commuter cyclists,Melbourne, 122 hrs 38minutes, 54 events

One event per 2.3 hr

Collision: Contact betweencyclist and another roaduser

Near-collision: Requiredrapid, evasive action to

avoid a collision Incident: Collision avoidance

less sudden

Collisions (2)

Near-collisions (6)

Incidents (46)

From cycling incidents to fear of cycling

Serious injuries are relatively rare, but stressful incidents arecommon

How do stressful, but otherwise harmless incidents contributeto a fear of cycling?

Risk assessment and risk communication research hasidentified a number of factors that lead to heightened riskconcerns (independently of actual risk)

In the 1980s, qualitative elements of peoples riskassessments were researched and developed following thefailure 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 activitiesfeelrisky?Components of riskperception Driving Cycling

Sense of personal control High Low?

Trust in other road users(are they looking out forme?)

Yes No?

Common/unusual Common Unusual

Discrimination:in-group/out-group

In-group Out-group

Social cues Everyone is doing it Not many people do it

Vulnerability Low (protective shell) High (no protective shell)

Consequences Usually minor Potentially severe

Addressing cycling risk and fear

High-cycling countries clearly do both

Eg, the Netherlands: high levels (27% bicycle modeshare of trips) of safe cycling (1.4 KSI per 10 million

km)

Relationship between risk reduction and fear

reduction measures?


4/4

25/09/20

Risk reduction measures International experience indicates that we can increase cycling

andimprove cycling safety by implementing an integratedpackage 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 placegreater responsibility on drivers for the safety of cyclists andpedestrians

national cycling promotion, education and skills programs 19

Fear reduction

Social aspects of risk perceptions important

What do other people think and do? Of the many cues that influence behavior, at any point in

time, none is more common than the actions of others.(Bandura, 1986, p.206)

Importance of Cycling is prevalent and socially acceptablemessages

The Netherlands cycling strategy:

Good infrastructure, PLUS

Fun

Easy

Habitual (everyone is doing it)

Emotions linked to modes of transport

(Fietsberaad 2009)

Fear reduction measuresComponents of riskperception Fear reduction measures

Sense of controlCycling skills and self-efficacy

Trust in other road users(general and are theylooking out for me?)

Road rules, enforcement, compliancePublic attitudes to road safety (eg speed control)Drivers responsible for avoiding collisions with cyclists

Common/unusual Prioritise cycling in urban areasCycling promotion

Discrimination/vilification Establish cycling as a legitimate form of transportAddress public, media and individual vilification ofpeople who ride bicycles (as has been done for other

forms of discrimination and vilification)Improve image of cycling, address misperceptionsIncrease social acceptability

Social cues Direct observationMaking the invisible visible

Conclusions

Reducing cycling injuries is an important road safetyobjective

Reducing fear of cycling is an important wider health andsocial policy objective

The two are interconnected but not identical

To the extent that cycling safety measures increasecycling, the road safety sector needs to acknowledge thatimproving cycling (and pedestrian) safety has multiplepublic health and other social benefits in addition toinjury prevention.

Important to address factors at the base of the iceberg

Conclusions

Regardless of (i) relative importance of perceived and actualrisk and (ii) precise mechanism by which risk and fearconstrain cycling:

Need to address both

Measures different but overlapping

Some potential dilemmas:

Does advocacy for improving cycling safety reduce cycling byincreasing fear?

Do some safety measures reduce risk but increase fear (eghelmets, reflective clothing?)

Do some measures reduce fear but not necessarily risk? (egsome forms of cycling infrastructure)

Its not rocket science its more complicated (John Adams)

apcc conference 2011 j garrard

Documents