Predictors of the frequency and subjective experience of cycling near misses: Findings from the first two years of the UK Near Miss Project

Using 2014 and 2015 data from the UK Near Miss Project, this paper examines the stability of self-report incident rates for cycling near misses across these two years. It further examines the stability of the individual-level predictors of experiencing a near miss, including what influences the scariness of an incident. The paper uses three questions asked for only in 2015, which allow further exploration of factors shaping near miss rates and impacts of incidents. Firstly, a respondent's level of cycling experience; secondly, whether an incident was perceived as deliberate; and finally, whether the respondent themselves described the incident as a ‘near miss'(as opposed to only a frightening and/or annoying non-injury incident). Using this data, we find a decline of almost a third in incident rates in 2015 compared to 2014, which we believe is likely to be largely an artefact due to differences in reporting rates. This suggests caution about interpreting small fluctuations in subjectively reported near miss rates. However, in both years near miss rates are many times more frequent than injury collisions. In both years of data collection our findings are very similar in terms of the patterning of incident types, and how frightening different incident categories are, which increases confidence in these findings. We find that new cyclists experience very high incident rates compared to other cyclists, and test a conceptual model explaining how perceived deliberateness, near-miss status, and scariness are connected. For example, incidents that are perceived to be deliberate are more likely to be experienced as very frightening, independent of their ‘near miss’ status

The Impact of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Active Travel, Car Use, and Perceptions of Local Environment during the COVID-19 Pandemic

We use longitudinal survey data to compare the impacts of ‘emergency’ low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), set up during Covid-19, to the impacts of longer-standing LTNs. While sample sizes are small, both types of LTNs had similar increases in active travel and similar improvements in perceptions of the local environment for cycling (but no change in perceptions of most other aspects of the local environment). Car use tended to decrease. This similarity suggests the emergency LTNs may bring benefits similar to longer-standing LTNs despite their lower budgets and shorter planning periods. We also found that the active travel impacts of the long-standing LTNs grew larger over time, suggesting the emergency LTNs may likewise see larger effects in the future

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, Car Use, and Active Travel: evidence from the People and Places survey of Outer London active travel interventions

This paper reports on analysis of impacts of active travel interventions in Outer London between 2016-19. We find larger effects (decreased car ownership and use, increased active travel) in intervention areas where Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) were introduced. Decreased car ownership and use is only found in such areas. Sample size for LTN areas is small and hence uncertainty about effect magnitude is large, but effect direction is consistent. This suggests that to reduce car use as well as increase active travel, LTNs are an important part of the intervention toolbox

“You always think about what other people be thinking”: Black men and barriers to cycling in London

The climate crisis and coronavirus pandemic have highlighted the need and potential to increase cycling, alongside inequalities in current cycling levels. In London, UK, groups including women, ethnic minority communities, and disabled people are under-represented. While gender-based marginalisation within cycling is more widely discussed, racial exclusions remain under-researched, and no other study focuses on experiences of cycling among Black men. This small qualitative study recruited Black male Londoners, a group whose cycling rates remain low compared to White males, although they have relatively high cycling potential and expressed demand for cycling. Speaking to Black men who cycle at least occasionally, it explored their experiences of and feelings about cycling, and the barriers that prevent them from cycling more. The analysis identifies barriers associated with direct discrimination or marginalisation, and barriers more connected to London's wider structural inequalities in areas such as employment, poverty, and housing. Among the former are racism, stop and search, and lack of visual representation; among the latter are access to infrastructure, secure parking, and the Cycle to Work scheme. Some interviewees suggest a Black cycling eco-system is needed to address a problematic dynamic of invisibility/visibility among Black men with respect to cycling

The Impact of Introducing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Road Traffic Injuries

We examine the impact on road traffic injuries of introducing low traffic neighbourhoods in Waltham Forest, London. Using Stats19 police data 2012-2019, we find a three-fold decline in number of injuries inside low traffic neighbourhoods after implementation, relative to the rest of Waltham Forest and the rest of Outer London. We further estimate that walking, cycling, and driving all became approximately 3-4 times safer per trip. There was no evidence that injury numbers changed on boundary roads. Our findings suggest that low traffic neighbourhoods reduce injury risks across all modes inside the neighbourhood, without negative impacts at the boundary

Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in a suburban context: One-year findings from an evaluation of London’s in-progress mini-Hollands programme

Background More evidence is needed on the impacts of building infrastructure for walking and cycling. A knowledge gap and an implementation gap have been mutually reinforcing. This paper reports on a longitudinal study examining the impacts of the still in progress ‘mini-Hollands programme’, which seeks to transform local environments for walking and cycling, in three Outer London boroughs. Compared to Inner London, Outer London has low levels of cycling and low levels of walking, and is relatively car dependent. Methods We conducted a longitudinal study of 1712 individuals sampled from households in mini-Holland boroughs (intervention sample) and from non mini-Holland Outer London boroughs (control sample). The intervention sample was further divided, a priori, into those living in “high-dose neighbourhoods”, where substantial changes to the local walking and cycling infrastructure had been implemented, versus “low-dose neighbourhoods” where such improvements had not (yet) been made. At both baseline (2016) and one-year follow-up (2017), we administered an online survey of travel behaviour and attitudes to transport and the local environment. Results One year’s worth of interventions was associated with an increase in active travel among those living in areas defined as ‘high-dose’ neighbourhoods. Specifically, those in high-dose areas were 24% more likely to have done any past-week cycling at follow-up, compared to those living in non mini-Holland areas (95% CI, 2% to 52%). The mid-point estimate for increase in active travel (walking plus cycling) time for the same group was an additional 41.0 min (95% CI 7.0, 75.0 min). Positive changes in views about local environments were recorded in intervention areas, driven by a perceived improvement in cycling-related items. Controversy related to the interventions is expressed in a growth in perceptions that ‘too much’ money is spent on cycling in intervention areas. However, intervention areas also saw a reduction in perceptions that ‘too little’ money is spent (the latter view being common both at baseline and Wave 1 in control areas). Conclusion Overall, the findings here suggest that programme interventions, while controversial, are having a measurable and early impact on active travel behaviour and perceptions of the local cycling environment

Impacts of active travel interventions on travel behaviour and health: Results from a five-year longitudinal travel survey in Outer London

Introduction This paper analyses six years' data from the People and Places longitudinal study. The study examines travel behaviour impacts of major investments in active travel infrastructure in three Outer London boroughs (the ‘mini-Hollands programme’). Methods A controlled longitudinal analysis was used to compare changes in active travel in intervention and control groups, with three levels of intervention group (mini-Holland borough but no local intervention; active travel infrastructure but no low traffic neighbourhood; low traffic neighbourhood, usually also with proximity to active travel infrastructure). Finally, the article estimates the 20-year health economic benefit from uptake of active travel, using the average point estimates across all waves for both the mini-Holland programme as a whole and in the most intensively treated areas. Results At all waves, living in an area with mini-Holland interventions was consistently associated with increased duration of past-week active travel, compared with the control group. Changes in active travel behaviour were largest and had the strongest evidence for those living in low traffic neighbourhoods. Most of the increase was in time spent walking, although the strongest evidence of increased participation was for cycling. There was also evidence of decline in car ownership and/or use, although this was weaker and seen convincingly only in the low traffic neighbourhood areas. The 20-year health economic benefit from the mini-Holland areas was calculated at £1,056 m, from a programme cost of around £100 m. The most effective interventions (low traffic neighbourhoods) provide a twenty-year per-person physical-activity related benefit of £4800 compared to a per-person cost of £28–35 (LTNs implemented during 2020 as Covid-19 emergency interventions) or £112 (higher-cost LTNs with more features like greening and crossing improvements). Conclusions Active travel interventions provided high value for money when comparing health economic benefits from physical activity to costs of scheme implementation, particularly low traffic neighbourhoods

The Impact of 2020 Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Fire Service Emergency Response Times, in London, UK

Between March and September 2020, 72 ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’ (LTNs) were implemented in London. We examined the impact on fire brigade emergency response times in October 2020-February 2021 (‘post’), as compared to the same months in the previous two years (‘pre’). We found no evidence that response times inside the LTNs or on boundary roads were affected (e.g. pre/post change for first engine: -14 seconds inside LTNs; -11 seconds in the rest of London; p=0.4 for difference). Fire crews reported more delays due to ‘traffic calming measures’ in LTNs, but this was entirely offset by a decrease in delays for other reasons, particularly ‘traffic’. This was true both in LTNs that predominately blocked motor traffic using physical barriers (e.g. planters) and in LTNs using camera enforcement. These findings add to evidence that LTNs do not adversely affect emergency response times

Major investment in active travel in Outer London: Impacts on travel behaviour, physical activity, and health

Introduction: This paper analyses three years’ data from the People and Places longitudinal study. The study examines the travel behaviour impacts of major investments in active travel infrastructure in three Outer London boroughs (the ‘mini- Hollands programme’). Methods: The People and Places survey, conducted annually in May-June, treats the mini-Holland interventions as a ‘natural experiment’. Participants in other Outer London boroughs form a control group. The survey had over 3,000 respondents at baseline (May-June 2016). Three follow-up waves each had over 1400 repeat respondents. A difference-in-differences analysis was used to compare changes in active travel uptake in intervention and control groups. Further analysis examines likelihood of meeting targets for past-week active travel and all physical activity. Finally, the article conducts a health economic benefit assessment based on uptake of active travel at Wave 3. Results: At all waves, living close to mini-Holland interventions (‘high-dose’ areas) was consistently associated with increased duration of past-week active travel, compared with the control group (44.0 extra minutes in Wave 2, 41.0 in Wave 1, and 41.5 in Wave 3). Changes in active travel behaviour were stronger in the high-dose area than in the low-dose area. Most of the increase was in walking. People living in high-dose areas were 13% more likely at Wave 3 to achieve 140 minutes active travel than people in control areas. People living in high- or low-dose areas in mini-Holland boroughs were more likely to be physically active for 5 days in the past week. The 20- year health economic benefit in high-dose areas from three years’ of interventions (costing £80 million) is £724 million. Conclusion: Ambitious interventions can yield substantial health economic benefits from changes in active travel. This includes early uptake of walking as well as cycling. Most of the increase was in walking but the ratio varied by year