Discourages Walking and Bicycling Who Owns The Roads? How Motorised Traffic
Discourages Walking and Bicycling Who Owns The Roads? How Motorised Traffic
Discourages Walking and Bicycling Who Owns The Roads? How Motorised Traffic
com
doi: 10.1136/ip.2009.022566
These include:
References
Email alerting
service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
Original article
ABSTRACT
Objective: To examine the impact of traffic on levels of
walking and bicycling.
Method: Review of the literature of medical, public
health, city planning, public administration and traffic
engineering.
Results: The real and perceived danger and discomfort
imposed by traffic discourage walking and bicycling.
Accurately or not, pedestrians and bicyclists judge injury
risk and respond accordingly. Although it can be difficult
to measure these effects, observed behaviour provides
good evidence for these effects, with the strongest
association being an inverse correlation between volumes
and speeds of traffic and levels of walking and cycling.
Conclusion: Interventions to reduce traffic speed and
volume are likely to promote walking and bicycling and
thus result in public health gains.
Over the past two decades, the health consequences of physical inactivity have become increasingly apparent. Non-communicable diseases and
related conditions, such as overweight and obesity,
have increased steadily in Europe and the USA.
European health ministries have acknowledged
that physical inactivity, along with unhealthy
diets, plays a key role in the obesity epidemic,
and poses one of the most serious challenges to
public health in Europe. Many have endorsed the
promotion of physical activity, including stimulating cycling and walking, by better urban design
and transport policies.1
During the mid-1990s, an international scientific
consensus developed over the value of moderate
physical activityat least 30 min of physical
activity on most, preferably all, days of the week
for adultsin reducing risks of a number of noncommunicable diseases.2 Children and young people should participate in physical activity of at least
moderate intensity for 60 min per day. At a
frequency of at least twice a week, some of these
activities should help to enhance and maintain
muscular strength, flexibility and bone health.3 4
However, an analysis of a survey of European
Union countries showed that two-thirds of the
adult population did not reach recommended levels
of physical activity, and another survey showed
similar results among young people aged 11, 13 and
15 across Europe.5 6
Integrating physical activity into daily life is an
important factor in increasing population levels of
activity; bicycling and walking are major potential
contributors to this.7 8 Many journeys are short,
yet many of them are taken using cars. It has been
estimated that some 50% of these short trips could
Injury Prevention 2009;15:369373. doi:10.1136/ip.2009.022566
METHOD
We searched for papers that reported observed
evidence that traffic discouraged walking and
cycling in medical, public health, city planning,
public administration and traffic engineering literature. This is an inchoate and poorly organised
area of research, with very few publications
identified through formal literature review, so the
majority of the papers were identified through our
professional networks. In these publications and
reports, specific evidence relating to the question
was often only presented incidentally.
RESULTS
Our literature search found that negative traffic
perceptions are associated with decreases in walking and bicycling. This finding was consistently
found across several types of studies.
A number of studies have observed people
avoiding dangerous and unpleasant traffic. Where
pedestrians and bicyclists are safer, levels of
walking and cycling tend to be higher, and vice
versa. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the
safety of cycling and the amount of cycling in 14
369
Original article
European countries; this relationship is observed consistently
across a wide range of contexts.18
Traffic can delay, and hence deter, walking and bicycling.
Traffic also imposes injury risk on non-motorised travellers. In
Sweden and Denmark, roadway investment planning incorporate methods for quantifying this barrier effect.19
Fear of traffic can be seen in how and where pedestrians cross
streets. In the USA, 14% of the people on crosswalks ran rather
than walked across the road.20 Pedestrians are less likely to cross
streets if the crosswalk is unmarked. Where legs of an
intersection were otherwise matched and comparable, but only
one of the crosswalks was marked with paint, pedestrians
avoided the unmarked crosswalk in a 2/1 ratio. Young and older
pedestrians were even more likely to avoid the unmarked
crosswalk, more so as the number of traffic lanes increased.21
Even though motorists are legally obligated to yield at zebra
crossings, three out of four motorists use speed to intimidate
pedestrians into yielding. Only 5% of the motorists yield to
pedestrians.22
When roadways are equipped with sidewalks, nearly four
times as many people walk. More than six times as many people
walk along two-lane roads as four-lane roads.23
Men and women bicycle at different levels, possibly reflecting
different attitudes to risk. In communities with low levels of
cycling, more men than women bicycle, but, as the number of
bicyclists increases, the sex differences diminish.24
Neighbours are less likely to know and trust each other in
neighbourhoods with high traffic volume. Outdoor activities are
less common on high-traffic streets. Children are rarely found
playing except on the light-traffic streets. Residents felt their
delay in crossing streets increased as traffic volume increased.
The author of this study concluded that the impacts of traffic
on street life were extremely severe.25
The amount of walking and bicycling changes with both
long-term and short-term changes in traffic volume and speed.
Over two generations, the amount of walking and bicycling has
greatly decreased in many countries, with far fewer children
playing in the streets.26 Before automobiles dominated the
streets, children played in them.27 In the early 1900s, the advent
of motor vehicles was seen as gradually driving bicyclists from
the roads because of the dangerous and unpleasant nature of
motor vehicle use.28
In the long term, traffic volume and speed have increased. In
the USA, traffic volume increased 63% between 1980 and 1997,
almost three times faster than population growth.29 In Western
European countries, car use is now 2.5 times that of 1970.30
DISCUSSION
The real or perceived danger and unpleasantness of traffic
discourages walking and bicycling. There is both survey and
observational evidence for this and a strong association between
increasing speeds and volumes of traffic and decreasing levels of
walking and cycling.
Original article
Figure 2 School age children in USA:
safer streets or less walking and
bicycling?
Figure 3
Figure 4
Original article
What is already known on the subject
c
c
Policy implications
c
Original article
Given that many roadway projects make traffic more
dangerous and less pleasant, the effects on people walking and
bicycling should be routinely measured. Routine monitoring of
walking and bicycling would address this, and allow identification of positive as well as negative effects of transport
interventions.
The health benefits of increased physical activity resulting
from changes in walking and cycling should be quantified and
included in appraisals of transport projects. This approach can
be used for schemes such as the London congestion charge as
well as engineering and infrastructure projects.50 Tools such as
the WHO health economic assessment tool for cycling51 provide
a powerful mechanism for doing this.
The evidence presented here shows that reducing traffic speed
and volume encourages walking and bicycling. A shift in focus
away from prioritisation of motorised mobility to a wider
consideration of transport impacts, including the indirect
impacts of traffic danger on physical activity, is an important
step in moving towards a healthier, more active, and less obese
society.
Competing interests: None.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
We presented this paper, in an earlier form, at the 15 May 2006 WHO European
Environment and Health Committee, Oslo.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
NICE. Physical activity and the environment. Review one: transport. London: National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2006.
Jacobsen PL. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling. Inj Prev 2003;9:2059.
Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. Transportation cost and benefit analysis:
techniques, estimates and implications. 2nd edn. Victoria, BC: Victoria Transportation
Policy Institute, 2009. http://www.vtpi.org/tca/ (accessed 31 Jul 2009).
Transportation Research Board. Transit Cooperative Research Program and
Cooperative Highway Research Program. Improving pedestrian safety at unsignalized
crossings. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 2006.
Zegeer CV, Stewart JR, Huang H, et al. Safety effects of marked versus unmarked
crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: executive summary and recommended
guidelines. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-RD-01-075. Feb
2002.
Varhelyi A. Drivers speed behaviour at a zebra crossing: a case study. Accid Anal
Prev 1998;30:73143.
Qin X, Ivan JN. Estimating pedestrian exposure prediction model in rural areas.
Transp Res Rec 2001;1773:8996.
Anonymous. Gender and critical mass: do high cycle flows correlate with a high
proportion of female cyclists? London Analytics Research Journal 2005. http://www.
londonanalytics.info/research-journal/issue1 (accessed 29 Nov 2005).
Appleyard D. Livable streets. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
Hillman M, Adams J, Whitelegg J. One false move: a study of childrens independent
mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1990.
Norton PD. Fighting traffic: the dawn of the motor age in the American city.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
Anonymous. Cycling and motor-cars. Lancet 1903;161:1460.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Our built and natural environments: a
technical review of the interactions between land use, transportation, and
environmental quality. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
231-R-01-002, January 2001.
European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport in
cooperation with Eurostat. Energy & transport in figures 2004. Brussels: European
Commission, 2004.
UK Department for Transport. National travel survey; 2002 update, revised 2004.
London: UK Department for Transport.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Travel and environmental implications of
school siting. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 231-R-03004, October 2003.
McDonald NC. Active transportation to school: trends among U.S. schoolchildren,
19692001. Am J Prev Med 2007;32:50916.
York G. Cars conquering the bicycle kingdom. Globe and Mail 2007 Jan 20.
Howe J. The headloading and footpath economy: walking in Sub-Saharan Africa.
World Transport Policy and Practice 2001;7:812.
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Achievements in public health,
19901999. Motor vehicle safety: a 20th century public health achievement. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48:36974.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic safety facts, 2001.
Washington, DC: Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 2002.
Loukaitou-Sideris A. Is it safe to walk? Neighborhood safety and security
considerations and their effects on walking. Journal of Planning Literature
2006;20:21932.
DiGuiseppi C, Roberts I, Li L. Influence of changing travel patterns on child death
rates from injury: trend analysis. BMJ 1997;314:71013.
Nathens AB, Jurkovich GJ, Cummings P, et al. The effect of organized systems of
trauma care on motor vehicle crash mortality. JAMA 2000;283:19904.
Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, et al. Neighborhood-based differences in physical
activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health 2003;93:15528.
Owen N, Humpel N, Leslie E, et al. Understanding environmental influences on
walking: review and research agenda. Am J Prev Med 2004;27:6776.
Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling:
findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav
Med 2003;25:8091.
Noland RB. Perceived risk and modal choice: risk compensation in transportation
systems. Accid Anal Prev 1995;27:50321.
US Department of Transportation. Reducing highway fatalities. http://safety.fhwa.
dot.gov/ped_bike/materials/pdf/fhwa-sa-06-07.pdf (accessed 11 Dec 2007).
Roberts I, Coggan C. Blaming children for child pedestrian injuries. Soc Sci Med
1994;38:74953.
Rivara FP, Thompson DC, Thompson RS. Epidemiology of bicycle injuries and risk
factors for serious injury. Inj Prev 1997;3:11014.
Stewart AE, Lord JH. Motor vehicle crash versus accident: a change in terminology
is necessary. J Trauma Stress 2002;15:3335.
Lightstone AS, Peek-Asa C, Kraus JF. Relationship between drivers record and
automobile versus child pedestrian collisions. Inj Prev 1997;3:2626.
Transport for London. Congestion charging: Fifth Annual Monitoring Report. London;
Mayor of London, July 2007.
WHO Regional Office for Europe. Health economic assessment tool for cycling
(HEAT for cycling). 2007. http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/TRT/
policy/20070503_1?language= (accessed 9 Jun 2008).
373