The Following article by Jan Garrard was published over on the ABC website.
It has long been recognised that urban planning and transport
policies in Australia encourage car use and discourage cycling and
walking. But what has been less well-recognised is that our road safety
policies and practices are also car-oriented. This is arguably a more
serious bias, because it results in unacceptably high levels of death
and serious injury among unprotected road users such as cyclists.
Australia prides itself on having achieved a relatively low traffic
crash fatality rate of 6.8 fatalities per 100,000 population. World's
best practice (3.8 fatalities per 100,000 population) is not that far
away, and we aspire to achieve it. But Australia's overall fatality rate
hides an inconvenient truth - our cyclist fatality and serious injury
rates are several times higher than world's best practice, and
increasing.
Cycling accounts for about one per cent of daily trips in Australia,
but cyclists comprise two per cent of road transport fatalities and 15
per cent of serious injuries. Serious injury rates for cyclists are
increasing as bicycle use increases (by 47 per cent from 2000 to 2007),
while for most other road users rates are steady or declining. The
relative risk of injury per kilometre travelled is several times higher
for a cyclist than for a person in a car.
Improving cycling safety is a key factor for increasing everyday
cycling, particularly for the 'missing' cyclists in Australia: women,
children, adolescent girls and older adults. It is also important to
recognise that perceived safety is as important as actual safety. Most
people don't know the relative risk of injury for a bike trip compared
to a car trip, but they know how it feels, and cycling in Australia feels risky.
Cycling safety and cycling prevalence go hand in hand. Not only does
the Netherlands have one of the highest rates of cycling in the
developed world (27 per cent of daily trips are by bicycle), it also has
the lowest cyclist injury rate (1.4 per 10 million kilometres cycled).
These figures highlight the potential for a win-win-win-etc scenario.
More cycling trips mean more health; cleaner air; less traffic
congestion; and more liveable cities; and, if we get it right, fewer
road traffic injuries. Achieving high levels of safe cycling begins with acknowledging that
cycling is a legitimate form of transport. In Australia we begrudgingly
tolerate cyclists on our roads, but the high-cycling countries of
Western Europe actually prioritise cycling over driving for the numerous short to medium-distance trips that are a part of daily life.
The implication of accepting cyclists as legitimate road users is
that people who ride bicycles have a right to complete their journey
safely. Citizens in high-cycling countries are protected by road safety
systems that acknowledge that the greatest risk to cyclists comes from
motor vehicles and the way they are driven. The protection is
multi-faceted - safe cycling infrastructure is complemented by ethical,
moral and legal environments that protect vulnerable road users. In several European countries, the higher standards of duty-of-care
for more vulnerable road users include the legal responsibility for car
drivers to avoid collisions with cyclists and pedestrians. In these
countries the onus is on drivers to prove no-fault when in collisions
with pedestrians and cyclists.
"I just didn't see her", "He came from no-where", or "It was
raining/foggy/dark/glary" are not legitimate excuses for colliding with
people on bikes or on foot. A driver is expected to anticipate the
presence of cyclists and pedestrians on the road, and take action to
avoid injuring them. In contrast, drivers in Australia, the USA and UK are far less likely
to be held accountable for injuring cyclists and pedestrians, including
when the driver clearly is at fault. An analysis of pedestrian and
cyclist fatalities in New York City found that most pedestrian and
cyclist deaths were caused by dangerous driving (90 per cent), but few
of the drivers responsible (26 per cent) received summonses for traffic
violations. No comparable analysis has been conducted in Australia, but
numerous instances have been reported that demonstrate a similar social
and legal tolerance of the harm caused by drivers to cyclists and
pedestrians.
The flip side of our reluctance to hold drivers responsible for
injuring cyclists and pedestrians is our predilection to blame cyclists
themselves. In a classic case of victim-blaming, cyclists are said to be
"asking for trouble" by putting themselves in harm's way by cycling on
public roads. The implication is that it is cyclists who should avoid
hazardous drivers - not the other way around. Australia's National Cycling Strategy (pdf)
aims to double cycling by the year 2016. Achieving this target will
require investing in good cycling infrastructure. But constructing bike
paths and lanes is not an effective stand-alone strategy for achieving
high levels of safe cycling. We also need to invest in 'soft
infrastructure' in the form of driver and cyclist education and
training, and equitable (and equitably enforced) road rules. High levels
of safe cycling are underpinned by a culture of respect for the rights
of all road users to a safe and comfortable journey regardless of
whether their vehicle of choice is a car or a bicycle.
The route to high levels of safer cycling is well-developed, clearly
sign-posted, and not particularly difficult, it's simply that it can
feel a little alien to a nation whose personal mobility is so
all-pervasively car-oriented.
No comments:
Post a Comment