outline 1. why cycle? 2. (safety health) 3. safe system 4. what next

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "outline 1. why cycle? 2. (safety health) 3. safe system 4. what next"

Shanon Russell
5 years ago
Views:

2 outline 1. why cycle? 2. (safety health) 3. safe system 4. what next

answers) 56% it s faster 37% more convenient 29% healthy 26%

3 In a city of many cyclists, why do they ride? Copenhageners reasons for cycling to and from work (multiple answers) 56% it s faster 37% more convenient 29% healthy 26% inexpensive 12% well-being, good start to day 9% new job/ relocation 5% environmental concerns

5 for people in a hurry

8 10-15 km/hr Average speed in European urban centres at peak periods km/hr (Dublin) 15 km/hr (Lyon) 15.5 km/hr (Copenhagen)

9 for people who can t afford to be late

11 for local shops

12 Revenue in Copenhagen shops and supermarkets by mode of transport (DKK billion/yr)

13 Expenditure, Portland (shops, restaurants,bars) by mode of transport (USD person/month)

14 Retail revenue per square foot and per hour of occupied parking, Melbourne, AUS. $A 0.69 $A 0.19 Lee, 2008

15 2011 Salt Lake City, USA S 3rd & S 300th ,

2015 Salt Lake City, USA S 3rd & S 300th 40.7628885,-111.

16 2015 Salt Lake City, USA S 3rd & S 300th , South Street Reconfiguration +30% -30% +9% $ P

17 for safety?

18 Road fatalities, changes from to % Madrid Warsaw Dublin City Copenhagen Inner London Barcelona Greater London Auckland The Hague Zürich Calgary Melbourne Rome Vancouver Montreal Stockholm Berlin Paris City Brussels Paris area Edmonton New York City -49% -47% -36% -30% -29% -26% -26% -25% -21% -21% -20% -19% -19% -18% -18% -18% -16% -15% -12% -7% -7% 0% City -10% -20% Whole country -30% -40% -50%

20 Modal shares of road fatalities, pedestrian bicycle powered-2-wheeler other road users Paris City Inner London Barcelona Madrid Dublin City Bogotá D.C. Stockholm Paris area Copenhagen The Hague Milan Greater London Fortaleza Warsaw Riga New York City Berlin Vancouver Buenos Aires Zürich Mexico City Rome Montreal Guadalajara Lisbon Brussels Edmonton Melbourne Calgary Auckland 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

21 Relative risk by mode Relative risk of death/km bicycle vs. car 14 UK 11 Switzerland 6 Norway 6 Netherlands Relative risk of death/hr of travel: UK: 4 Belgium: 1

22 Risk of fatality per unit distance travelled, City Whole Country 161 fatalities per billion kilometre travelled Paris City The Hague Paris area Berlin Copenhagen Barcelona Inner London Greater London Auckland Calgary Vancouver Copenhagen Berlin The Hague Montreal Paris City Barcelona Paris area Greater London Inner London Calgary Auckland Buenos Aires Bogotá D.C. New York City Milan Barcelona Berlin Paris City Paris area Melbourne Inner London Copenhagen Brussels Greater London Auckland

23 Risk of fatality per unit distance travelled, City Whole Country 161 fatalities per billion kilometre travelled Paris City The Hague Paris area Berlin Copenhagen Barcelona Inner London Greater London Auckland Calgary Vancouver Copenhagen Berlin The Hague Montreal Paris City Barcelona Paris area Greater London Inner London Calgary Auckland Buenos Aires Bogotá D.C. New York City Milan Barcelona Berlin Paris City Paris area Melbourne Inner London Copenhagen Brussels Greater London Auckland

24 Risk of fatality per unit distance travelled, City Whole Country 161 fatalities per billion kilometre travelled Paris City The Hague Paris area Berlin Copenhagen Barcelona Inner London Greater London Auckland Calgary Vancouver Copenhagen Berlin The Hague Montreal Paris City Barcelona Paris area Greater London Inner London Calgary Auckland Buenos Aires Bogotá D.C. New York City Milan Barcelona Berlin Paris City Paris area Melbourne Inner London Copenhagen Brussels Greater London Auckland

26 Heavy vehicle collisions % fatal bicycle crashes involving truck, bus, coach 33% Ireland: 33% Denmark 25% Belgium 25% UK 20% Netherlands 20% France 12% Germany 11% Spain 4% Italy

27 Single crashes Single bicycle crashes e.g. with no crash opponent are significant and under-reported Single bicycle crash involvement as % of all bicycle crash victims Flanders/Brussels: 87% Belgium: 73% Netherlands: ~75%

28 Elderly cyclists The elderly are especially vulnerable % of all bicycle crash deaths 60yrs and older: Japan: 70% Korea: 65% Italy: 57% Netherlands: 55% Denmark: 49% France: 45% UK: 21%

29 Electric bicycles? After controlling for distance travelled and other potential confounders there is: no difference in crash likelihood and injury severity between EB and CB users crashes on EBs and CBs to be equally severe Schepers, P., Klein Wolt, K., Fishman, E. (2018)

31 Junctions and safety 3.2 km B A 13 minutes 11% of time in a junction

32 Junctions and safetye of fatal crashes 3.2 km B A 11% of time in a junction 29% 36% 35% EU Korea USA

33 EU Fatal crashes by hour and month absolute numbers, , n= Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec

34 EU Fatal crashes by hour and day of the week absolute numbers, , n= Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

35 for safety health

36 Air pollution Accounting for ventilatory effort, cyclists register 2 to 8 times more pollutant intake than car occupants

37 Health Cycling, as a moderate physical activity can significantly reduce mortality and morbidity due to: Cardiovascular disease Type-2 diabetes Cancer (Colon, breast) Osteoporosis Depression Impact greatest when 1st becoming active

38 on balance, the monetised benefits from improved health are up to 20x greater than the combined health impacts of crashes and exposure to air pollution

40 -15% Today s childrens cardiovascular fitness compared to 30 years ago G. Tomkinson et al, 2013

41 for the economy

42 Environment & climate Economy Social Affairs Energy + Resources Technology + Design Mobility Health Time + Space Diversity of cultures 513,190,000,000/yr Economic impact cycling, European Union Source: European Cyclists Federation

43 Copenhagen at peak hour Every kilometre cycled saves society 0.22 Every kilometre driven in a car costs society 0.76

44 Australia Every 20mn bicycle commute to work and back saves Australia more than AUD21

45 Utrecht The total social benefit of all kilometres cycled in Utrecht is 250 million

46 more, safer, cycling

47 Many authorities cannot adequately assess whether or not policies improve safety safety (crash rate) = crashes (#)? exposure (km, trips)?

48 (mis)reporting Police (official) records and hospital records do not concur. Under-reporting is significant and widespread, especially for less severe injury crashes. Austria bicycle injury crashes 2009: (police) (hospital) (total, adjusted)

49 Police registered vs. real Cyclist serious injuries Netherlands (3 yr. avg.) 7276 Actual number (Police and hospital) % Registered number (Police) %

50 Police registered vs. real Cyclist serious injuries Netherlands (3 yr. avg.) 7276 Actual number (Police and hospital) % Registered number (Police) %

51 Do we make cyclists safe in the current traffic system?

52 or do we make the traffic system safe for people cycling?

53 Do policies that increase the number of cyclists lead to more crashes?

54 Cycling fatalities and distance cycled by country Cycling fatalities per billion km cycled Distance cycled per year per inhabitant (km) Netherlands Denmark Germany Belgium Finland Switzerland Norway Austria Sweden Ireland Italy France United Kingdom USA

55 Cycling fatalities vs. distance cycled by city 64 fatalities per billion kilometre travelled y = x y = x Cycling Walking kilometres per person per year

56 Do policies that increase the number of cyclists lead to more crashes? Safety in numbers? or Numbers because of safety?

61 Safe system Functionality: Road design matches desired usage Homogeneity: Speed management, Separation Predictability: Avoid unexpected situations Forgivingness: Minimise crash outcomes

62 Safe system Functionality: Road design matches desired usage

63 Safe system Homogeneity: Speed management

64 Safe system Homogeneity: Speed management

65 Safe system Homogeneity: Separation: essential to manage crash risks at intersections or high traffic situations.

66 Safe system Homogeneity: Separation: essential to manage crash risks at intersections or high traffic situations.

67 Safe system Homogeneity: Separation: essential to manage crash risks at intersections or high traffic situations.

68 Safe system Homogeneity: Separation: essential to manage crash risks at intersections or high traffic situations.

69 Perceived safety Real safety

70 Continuous cycle network of high standard on routes and at intersections, improve cyclist safety, security and accessibility, and is thus an important basis for increasing bicycle use.

71 Safe system Predictability: Avoid unexpected situations

72 Safe system Forgivingness: Minimise crash outcomes

73 what next?

74 mobility in the city

75 walk cycle public transport car trucks/vans mobility in the city

76 drones ride-sourcing scooter share trucks/vans walk bike share cycle public transport car share car mobility in the city on-demand public transport shared micro-mobility deliver-bots

77 drones ride-sourcing scooter share trucks/vans walk bike share cycle public transport car share digitilisation car on-demand public transport shared micro-mobility deliver-bots

78 drones ride-sourcing scooter share trucks/vans walk bike share cycle public transport car share automation car on-demand transit shared micro-mobility deliver-bots

79 drones ride-sourcing scooter share trucks/vans walk bike share cycle public transport car share car on-demand transit artificial intelligence shared micro-mobility deliver-bots

80 convergence

82 detected, not connected cyclist

87 the curb: vehicle storage

88 the curb: flexible use zone Goods delivery Taxi/ride service Goods delivery

89 the curb: flexible use zone Bike share Goods delivery Services High-capacity public transport

90 the curb: flexible use zone Food truck Market Bike share Ride services Automated transit Ride services

91 the curb: flexible use zone Dining/leisure use Bike share Ride services Automated/on-demand transit Taxi/ride service

Sidewalk 9 000/hr Car storage On-street bikeway 1000/hr Mixed traffic lane frequent buses 1000-2800/hr Mixed traffic lane

92 Sidewalk 9 000/hr Car storage On-street bikeway 1000/hr Mixed traffic lane frequent buses /hr Mixed traffic lane /hr Mixed traffic lane /hr Mixed traffic lane frequent buses /hr On-street bikeway 1000/hr Car storage Sidewalk 9000/hr

Sidewalk 9000/hr Separated bike track 4000/hr Mixed traffic with frequent micro-buses 1000-2800/hr High-capacity

93 Sidewalk 9000/hr Separated bike track 4000/hr Mixed traffic with frequent micro-buses /hr High-capacity on-street bus or rail lane /hr per lane Automated vehicle lane /hr Separated bike track 4000/hr Sidewalk 9000/hr

95 When you prioritise active mobility, it makes getting around easier for everyone, including drivers. If you design a city for cars, it fails for everyone, including drivers Brent Toderian. TODERIAN UrbanWorks, former Director of City Planning, Vancouver

Transport statistics as exposure data in road safety analysis. Alexandre Santacreu 5 th ITF TRANSPORT STATISTICS MEETING, April 2018, Paris

Transport statistics as exposure data in road safety analysis Alexandre Santacreu 5 th ITF TRANSPORT STATISTICS MEETING, 25-26 April 2018, Paris 2 International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group IRTAD