Inequalities in self-report road injury risk in Britain: A new analysis of National Travel Survey data, focusing on pedestrian injuries

In 2007, Britain's (since 2013 England's) National Travel Survey started asking respondents about experiences of ‘road accidents’. This paper conducts new injury analysis using NTS data from 2007-15. The resultant dataset contains 147,185 adult individuals (weighted), of whom 17,990 reported experiencing one or more ‘road accidents’ in the three years prior to the survey date. This dataset includes incidents involving other road users and those that did not, less likely in general to be included in police injury data, and not at all in the case of pedestrian falls. The paper firstly compares this self-report injury data with police data, including comparisons for different user groups such as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Most studies of under-reporting focus on deaths and serious injuries, due to lack of other data on slight injuries. Self-report data enables a focus on that majority of injuries which are slight but may impact people's experiences of travel. The paper then compares the frequency of different types of pedestrian injury incident and finds that collisions in which a cyclist injures a pedestrian remain in this dataset very infrequent compared either to falls or to pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles. Finally, characteristics of pedestrians injured by motor vehicles and in falls are examined. A binary logistic regression analysis examines odds of being injured as a pedestrian either by a motor vehicle, or in a fall, controlling for self-report walking frequency. Disabled pedestrians, those living in low-income households, and in London are at higher risk of being injured by a motor vehicle, while older and disabled pedestrians and women are at higher risk of being injured in a fall. Implications for policy and research are discussed

Cycling near misses: their frequency, impact, and prevention

This paper explores cyclists’ experiences of non-injury incidents, arguing that these are important for cycling experience and uptake as well as for injury prevention. It discusses different types of non-injury incident collected in a recent survey of UK cyclists. These are everyday occurrences that in some cases have a substantially negative impact on cycling experiences. This article explores the impact of different incident types on people cycling both immediately and in the future. It analyses what near misses tell us about cyclists’ experience of problems related to road user behaviour and culture, and infrastructural conditions for cycling. The paper explores what cyclists experiencing near misses think might have prevented them. Based on this and on a comparison with common types of injury incidents, summary recommendations are made for policy and future research

Who caused that congestion? Narrating driving and cycling in a changing policy context

This paper analyses attitudes to cycling and driving, using qualitative survey data from 2128 participants in a study examining impacts of active travel schemes in Outer London. London has seen some success in reducing driving and increasing active travel; but progress remains patchy. Results show cycling attracted more support than driving, and fewer negative comments, although with differences between sub-groups. Views were more polarised in boroughs with major active travel interventions planned and under way. Car owners were more supportive of driving and less supportive of cycling than non-car owners. The use of a ‘place’ rather than movement frame elicited more negative comments about driving, however, such critiques were often ambivalent or ambiguous. More generally, discourses critiquing driving remain weak, despite widespread awareness of negative impacts of car use. For instance, narratives of congestion highlight the potential for problems associated with car use to be re-framed in support of driving. Comparison of comments on poor driving and poor cycling highlighted the persistence of cycling stigma. Cycling stigma combines with the weakness of anti-car narratives to reinforce controversy obstructing active travel policies. Challenging these twin barriers may prove essential to accelerating mode shift in London and elsewhere

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

Investigating the rates and impacts of near misses and related incidents among UK cyclists

The paper investigates the occurrence of non-injury incidents among cyclists in the UK, seeking to (i) generate a rate that can be compared with injury rates, (ii) analyse factors affecting incident rates, and (iii) analyse factors affecting the impact of incidents on cyclists. We collected data on non-injury cycling ‘incidents’ (near misses and other frightening and/or annoying incidents) from 1692 online diaries of cycle trip stages1 and incidents, participants having signed up in advance for a specific day. Following data cleaning and coding, a dataset was created covering 1532 diary days and 3994 records of incidents occurring within the UK. Incident rates were calculated and compared to injury risks for cyclists. Cross-tabulation and regression were used to identify factors affecting incident rates and the effect an incident has on the cyclist. Frightening or annoying non-injury incidents, unlike slight injuries, are an everyday experience for most people cycling in the UK. For regular cyclists ‘very scary’ incidents (rated as 3 on a 0–3 scale) are on average a weekly experience, with deliberate aggression experienced monthly. Per mile, non-injury incidents were more frequent for people making shorter and slower trips. People aged over 55 were at lower risk, as were those cycling at the weekend and outside the morning peak. Incidents that involved motor vehicles, especially those involving larger vehicles, were more frightening than those that did not. Near miss and other non-injury incidents are widespread in the UK and may have a substantial impact on cycling experience and uptake. Policy and research should initially target the most frightening types of incident, such as very close passes and incidents involving large vehicles. Further attention needs to be paid to the experiences of groups under-represented among cyclists, such as women making shorter trips

Reframing safety: An analysis of perceptions of cycle safety clothing

This article contributes to debates around cycle safety clothing, specifically helmets and high-visibility clothing. In England such items are widely promoted in safety campaigns and in broader cycling publicity, particularly for children. However, the impact of this approach on cycling safety and cycling uptake is unclear and contested. This article uses a combined analysis of three sets of qualitative interview data to explore talk about cycle helmets and high-visibility clothing. A thematic analysis involved coding all references to such safety clothing, and within that coding meanings, experiences, interactions, and links to other safety equipment. Reported use of safety clothing was strongly associated with perceived threat from motor vehicles, but accompanied by scepticism about effectiveness. Many interviewees felt and/or exerted social pressure to wear a helmet, and, to a lesser extent, high-visibility clothing. Analysis identified a widespread dislike of safety clothing, sometimes linked to cycling less. We found evidence of resistance to social pressure, expressed in complaints about inconvenience, discomfort (helmets), and personal appearance. More interdisciplinary research is needed to explore the complex relationships between cycling safety, the promotion of safety clothing, and cycling uptake. However, our findings suggest that, policy-makers and practitioners should carefully consider how promoting safety clothing might impact cycling uptake and experiences. Policy goals of increasing cycling and making it more 'normal' and subjectively safer might imply reducing or even avoiding the use of such accessories in everyday utility cycling contexts.The Changing Commutes project was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Grant number ES/K004549/1. The projects from which the interviews come were funded as detailed in the appendix. The work was undertaken under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence which is funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.05.00

Cycling’s Sensory Strategies: How Cyclists Mediate their Exposure to the Urban Environment

In this article, we focus on the many ways cyclists mediate their sensory exposure to the urban environment. Drawing on research in Hull, Hackney and Bristol during 2010 and 2011 for the Cycling Cultures research project, we describe a range of ‘sensory strategies’ enrolled by cyclists. Our research reveals how sensory strategies, such as using mobile audio devices, involve deliberate and finely tuned practices shaped by factors such as relaxation, motivation and location. This presents a contrast to media representations of the ‘iPod zombie cyclist’ who, plugged into a mobile audio device, lumbers insensitively and dangerously through the urban landscape. The article complicates the idea that sensory practices of listening and not-listening are two fixed and distinct ways of being in the urban environment. We suggest that considering the sensory strategies of cyclists opens up a new terrain for thinking about less easily represented, uncertain and fleeting intersections of mobility, place and the senses. Ultimately, we argue that an analysis of cycling’s sensory strategies might enrich our understanding of mobility cultures by operating to reconnect a range of mobile citizens with the broader messy and less easily controllable sensory landscape. This has implications both for understanding cycling as a sensory practice and for thinking about how the sensory dimensions of other mobile practices are shaped by practitioners

Rogue drivers, typical cyclists, and tragic pedestrians: a Critical Discourse Analysis of media reporting of fatal road traffic collisions

In Britain, a third of road traffic fatalities are pedestrians or cyclists. Media reporting may play a key role in shaping how people interpret these events. We conduct in-depth Critical Discourse Analysis of a sample of 17 London Evening Standard articles, covering car-bicycle, car-pedestrian, and bicycle-pedestrian fatality collisions. Using Van Leeuwen’s Social Actor model we find that drivers involved in collisions are backgrounded, except those who failed to stop, who are portrayed as exceptional. Pedestrian casualties are framed episodically, i.e. as individual incidents not linked to wider contexts. Cyclist fatalities are presented thematically, although this common theme was cycling itself, not infrastructure, policy, or driver behaviour. When involved in pedestrian fatality collisions, cyclists are directly described as participants, rather than referred to indirectly through their vehicle as drivers are. Thus, narratives tend to erase driver agency in collisions while highlighting agency for cyclists, and pedestrian deaths appear as isolated incidents rather than part of a wider structural pattern. We identify three key tropes: rogue drivers, typical cyclists, and tragic pedestrians. The analysis shows how these, and the reporting patterns identified here, help to reproduce assumptions about risk posed to others by different modes, and consequent responsibility for crashes

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