VRU AGE and Road Safety Suzanne Meade Introduction
- Slides: 15
VRU AGE and Road Safety Suzanne Meade
Introduction • Who are VRU? Cyclist and Pedestrian - Unprotected vulnerable road users. • Within these two groups there is an array of needs, utility and levels of participation. • This presentation looks at VRU in terms of age and road safety. 1
Carbon emissions Targets? Road Safety obesity VRU ¼ casualties 23% ageing population Zero Vision 2: 1 workers ? Outcomes | policies living cities children urbanisation 75% living urban 2050 Reduce child deaths travel plans Reduce car trips / health 15 Street design standards / Population density modal share air quality Cycling (10%) 2020 premature/yr 3
VRU Safety – Disproportionate VRU Risk Mode Share (National Statistics for Scotland, 2015) 1% mvkm Casualty Proportion – STATS 19 3 (Scottish Transport Statistics, 2016)
Overall Trend - 4
VRU Safety – Travel Varies with Age 5
VRU Safety - Risk Key 0 -16 Pedestrians Decreases after Continued 10 -14 Decrease to 70+ Sharp risk increase. Cyclists Peak 10 -14 Likely Increased risk (Per mvkm x 10 higher than car) 17 -64 Less risk +65 Scottish 0 -16 and 65+ Age Groups travel less compared to high bike mode share countries (Netherlands, Germany) 6
VRU +65 17% Scottish Pop. (increasing)Census 2011 Walk and Cycle less (- 50%) and shorter distance Avoid Traffic/ travel at lower speeds STATS 19 05 -14 Fatal Urban Rural 7 Mostly Rural (Cyclists) Injury outcome/recovery Serious Injury Problem Locations Slight Increase , Mostly Urban(Cyclists) Uncontrolled Junctions 23% KSI (Ped) Uncontrolled Junctions
VRU 0 -16 (Children) 18% Scottish Pop. Global Drop casualties (29% of all) Walk and Cycle shorter distance Walk (4 -11) 58% (12 -18) 42% Primary cycling growth (2. 4%), + 12 don’t cycle (0. 7%) 2. 5 times TATIS 2014 Table 15 STATS 19 05 -14 8 Fatal Serious Injury Problem Locations Urban Decrease Urban (Cyclists & Peds) Links 1/3 KSI (Ped) on links, children crossing/playing Rural Decrease Cyclists little change Uncontrolled Junctions(Cyclists)
VRU 17 -64 (Adults-Commuters) 65% Scottish Pop. Doubled (in some places 2001 -2011) + More affluent +34% Hospital +25% Police Fatal Urban Rural 9 Mostly Rural (Cyclists) Higher cycling speeds* Serious Injury Problem Locations Marked Increase(Cyclists) Uncontrolled Junctions, Roundabouts & TL Slight Increase (Cyclists) Marked increase & link (cyclists) Links(Cyclists)
Problem Areas for Age Groups • Uncontrolled Crossings • Cross-roads, • T-Junction / Staggered T-Junctions, • Pproportions of +65 at urban junctions • Children on Links , proportionally higher than junctions • Serious Injury increase mainly 17 -64 over a relatively short time – Urban Junctions and Rural Links 10
How do we Compare? Key Scotland Mode Shares Netherlands (Secret to Success) Impact +65 17 -64 0 -16 Yes Space/mode share Rural Links Space/ mode share Traffic Calming WIP (20 mph) Yes Severity Urban/Play Junction Treatment Traffic Lights(Yes) Priority(No) (75%) Yes Cognitive/ Space Priority/ Space Experience/ Space Traffic Education Driver/Cyclists Yes Attitudes Experience Pro Cyclists Regulation No Yes ? under reporting Si. N ? Yes ? ? Urban maybe ? Segregated Cycle Paths 11 4 2% / Very little
Protected Infra - Do we HAVE to wait? - 2007 -2013 & Pop 500 k 12 km to 152 km Risk reduced 50%(KSI/mvkm) 3 to +16 million trips Segregated paths caused change (Marques et al, 2017) 12 https: //www. theguardian. com/cities/2015/jan/28/seville-cycling-capital-southern-europe-bike-lanes
Conclusion • Think 8 -80, should be easy to follow, forgiving. • Transformation to segregation have to take a very longtime. • A lot is possible. 13 doesn’t
Operation Close Pass Thankyou