[sustran] Safety of non motorised modes

[Thomas Krag]

Research from Western Europe: Walking and cycling is safer than cardriving

By tradition western transport professionels (traffic engineers and researchers) consider non-motorised modes unsafe. And as far as the risk of (fatal) accidents per kilometre is concerned this can be justified. When comparing walking, cycling and cardriving, fatality rates for the non motorised users are fund to be 4-10 times higher as those for car users (let's forget about mopeds and motorcycles, which are even more dangerous).

Obviously the origin of the danger does not come from the non motorised means, but from the chosen organisation of traffic, where relatively fast going motorised vehicles are allowed in areas where unprotected human beings are present. But from the users point of view this is, in the short term, not relevant. The interesting point is whether one or the other mode is the best option from a personal safety point of view.

Quite interestingly, the usual assumption that cardriving for the user is safer than the alternatives tends not to be true. A long car trip, thus, will usually not be replaced by walking and cycling alone but also with public transport, where the fatality risk is much lower than for the car. Studies from Denmark indicate that the risk of dying in a traffic accident for a given person generally increases with the number of cars in the household. Those who live without a car, and who are walking and cycling far more than the average, have the smallest risk, because they are also much less exposed to cardriving where the risk is far from neglectible.

Another usual assumption is that air pollution is primarily a problem for the non-motorised users. A number of studies have been made in the area, most of them concluding the opposite, e.g. that car users are those being most heavily exposed to exhaust fumes. As long as the cars have not carbon filters installed the concentration of exhaust fumes inside the cars wil usually be beyond what is found at the roadside. The increased ventilation by non motorised users are usually not enough to "compensate" for this, so cyclists in total inhale less amonts of hazardous substances than car users going along the same road, when congested urban streets are in question. A recent Danish study from 1988 comfirms the finding.

When taking the positive effects from physical activity into account, cycling - at least in the Western country of Denmark - is highly recommendable from a health point of view. A recent study has shown that cycling to work is one of the strongest single factors contributing to lowered occurrence of cardio-vascular diseases and increased life length (Lars Bo Andersen, Peter Schnohr, Marianne Schroll, Hans Ole Hein: All-Cause Mortality Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Spots and Cycling to Work, Arch. Intern Med., 160, 12.6.2000). Several other studies exist on the issue.

World Health Organization has some years ago accepted a number of these points, being reflected in a charter for transport, environment and health, where promotion of the "active" transport modes, walking and cycling, are strongly recommended (see http://www.who.dk/London99/transporte.htm ).

Even though these findings are from the Western world, they have relevance also for less wealthy countries.

I wish everybody good luck with the discussions on the issue. Be aware that emotions are usually preferred for facts.

Thomas Krag

--

Thomas Krag
Wilhelm Marstrands Gade 11 - DK-2100 København Ø
tel +45 35 42 86 24, mobil +45 27 11 86 24
www.thomaskrag.com, email tk at thomaskrag.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20011218/fee5b71e/attachment.htm