[Excerpts from Getting Australia Moving]
“We…have created an environment that
makes it very convenient for people to
be inactive, and subsequently develop
unhealthy behaviours. The only way to
combat this is to make it equally
convenient for people to become active,
and moreover, easier for them to inherit
a better quality of life”.
Libby Darlison,
Chair, Premiers Council on Active Living, NSW.
SOME KEY POINTS:
- The more cyclists there are,
the safer it becomes. - Motorists behaviour largely
controls the likelihood of collisions
with people walking and cycling. - Comparison of pedestrian and
cyclist collision frequencies
between communities and over
time periods need to reflect the
amount of walking and bicycling. - Efforts to enhance pedestrian and
cyclist safety, including traffic
engineering and legal policies,
need to be examined for their
ability to modify motorist behavior. - Policies that increase walking and
cycling appear to be an effective
route to improving road safety.
A Victorian Parliamentary inquiry into
violence associated with motor vehicle
use received a large number of
submissions from the cycling
community reporting instances of road
violence. Several submissions
suggested that the presence of cyclists
on the road was a trigger for road
violence against cyclists (Drugs and
Crime Prevention Committee, 2005).
Driver knowledge of the road rules as
they relate to people on bicycles has
been found to be generally poor. Only
one in five (19%) of drivers knew that it
was legal for cyclists to ride two
abreast, 44% that cyclists were
allowed to ride along a clearway, and
63% that cyclists were allowed to
occupy a whole lane (Rissel et al,
2002). Importantly, this lack of
knowledge regarding vital aspects of
the road rules has been found to be
associated with a negative attitude
amongst motorists towards people on
bicycles (Rissel et al, 2002). The hostile
reception reported by bicyclists from
motorists is a consistent theme when
surveying people who ride bicycles.
Daley et al (2007) found that many
occasional and regular riders perceived
the average Sydney driver as impatient
and intolerant. Some thought drivers
were more likely to respect cyclist’s
safety and rights if bicycles were more
frequently encountered on the roads
and this is supported by Robinson
(2005) who found that the more
cyclists there are, the safer it becomes.
Riders described altercations where
motorists took out frustrations on
them, often triggered by the motorist’s
view that their journey was delayed by
the rider. Riders felt there was a
skewed driver perception that a cyclist
held up traffic, rather than seeing them
as a legitimate part of the traffic
system. It is this lack of
acknowledgement towards people on
bicycles that has been found by Greig
(2001) to be a significant deterrent
towards regular cycling.
https://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/CPFHlthRpr08V3prf1.pdf
More quotes:
Yet the perception of risk from cycle
accidents is often disproportionate to
the actual risk. For instance, the
hospitalisation rate from cycling is
seven times lower than that of football,
per 100,000 participants. Moreover,
the evidence clearly points to the fact
that the more cyclists there are, the
safer it becomes.
Approximately half of all Australian
adults are not meeting even the
modest current national
recommendations that:
“every adult should accumulate half an
hour of moderate-intensity physical
activity on at least 5 days per week”
(Commonwealth Health National PA guidelines,
1999; United States Surgeon General, 1996;
Haskell et al, 2007).
Research has shown that the more often
you cycle, the safer it is. In fact, by riding
twice a week instead of once a week, the
chance of an accident halves, due to training
and increased awareness of cars (Transport
Western Australia, 1996).
Safety concerns were found to be
amplified by aggressive motorist
behaviour. Motor vehicle speed is both
a perceived and actual safety hazard
for vulnerable road users such as
cyclists. An accident at 64km/h puts
cyclists at 17 times the risk of a fatality
than if the vehicle was travelling at
32km/h.
Frank et al (2004) have shown that each
additional hour in a motor vehicle
increases the chance of being obese by
6% – adjusting for socio-economic status.
There is increasing evidence
that higher levels of motor vehicle use
increase the risk of road trauma.
Strategies that provide non-motorised
transport options are increasingly
recognised as an effective road safety
strategy (Litman & Fitzroy, 2005). In
fact, policies aimed at reducing car use
typically result in around a 10%
reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled
and this could cut road trauma costs
by between $850 million and $1.7
billion per year (Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, 2007).
Moreover, 66% of respondents in the
2005 survey of 2403 cyclists in Victoria
reported experiencing intentional
harassment from motor vehicle
occupants in the previous 12 months
(Garrard et al, 2006). The rate of cyclist
harassment was an average of 24
incidents every 12 months (approx
once a fortnight). These disturbing
results are supported by a smaller
survey of cyclists in South Australia
(Brisco, 2006).
oldId.20080810103254496